Case 1403839/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Winfield v Tomy UK Co., Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 1403839/2018
- Decision date
- 15 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Winfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Winfield, brought an unfair dismissal complaint against TOMY UK Co., Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Mr Winfield had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to pursue the complaint.
The tribunal also noted that Mr Winfield did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected and that the respondent was required to submit its response to the remaining claims.
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 the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.