Case 1403717/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J King v G. Crook And Sons — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403717/2019
- Decision date
- 11 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J King
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr J King’s unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service, and the tribunal found that he had been employed by G. Crook And Sons for less than two years. On that basis, the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment therefore states that the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out.
The judgment adds that the claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. 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 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.