Case 1403105/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Harris v Bradfords Building Supplies Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403105/2020
- Decision date
- 16 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Harris brought complaints of unfair dismissal and entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment against Bradfords Building Supplies Limited. The tribunal recorded that sections 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 require not less than two years' service to bring those complaints.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It held that he was therefore not entitled to bring the proceedings, and noted that he had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the claims should not be struck out.
Accordingly, both the unfair dismissal claim and the claim for a statutory redundancy payment were struck out. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The claim was for entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the proceedings. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.155 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.