Case 1403718/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Kynaston v Simon Davis Flooring Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403718/2019
- Decision date
- 20 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Oliver
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Kynaston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 17 April 2020, Employment Judge Oliver considered whether the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint should be struck out. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had less than two years' service at the time of dismissal and therefore the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant's representative was given an opportunity to make representations against strike out, but the tribunal found that no sufficient representations were made. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.
The judgment also records that the claimant's remaining claims for disability discrimination were listed for hearing on 8 to 11 February 2021. No remedy was assessed in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At a preliminary hearing on 17 April 2020, the tribunal gave the claimant's representative an opportunity to explain why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal found the claimant had less than two years' service at the time of dismissal and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not make sufficient representations, so the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.