Case 1403893/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Brazil v Resin Driveways Hub Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1403893/2019
- Decision date
- 13 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Brazil
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Brazil brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against The Resin Driveways Hub Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaint was not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not provide 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.