Case 1403768/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Stanley v IMES International — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403768/2023
- Decision date
- 15 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Stanley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Stanley brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against IMES International. The tribunal identified section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as requiring at least two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it concluded that he was not entitled to bring the proceedings. It also recorded that he did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The result was that the unfair dismissal claim was struck out. No monetary award was made.
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 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had less than two years' service. It 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. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.