Case 1403134/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Berry v Nationwide Accident Repair Centre — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403134/2019
- Decision date
- 22 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Berry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T Berry presented a complaint of unfair dismissal against Nationwide Accident Repair Centre. Employment Judge Roper recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Berry had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that Mr Berry had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not give an acceptable reason. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, found that the claimant had less than two years' service, and concluded he was not entitled to bring the complaint. He was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 Employment Rights Act 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.