Case 1403068/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Utley v Midas Group Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403068/2019
- Decision date
- 21 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Utley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Mr Utley had been employed by Midas Group Ltd for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal found that Mr Utley was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not give an acceptable reason. The result was that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The tribunal noted that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.