Case 1403997/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Carvill v Mad Supplies Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403997/2020
- Decision date
- 28 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Carvill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr R Carvill, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Mad Supplies Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that Mr Carvill had been employed for less than two years. It therefore concluded that he was not entitled to bring the proceedings. After giving him an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, the tribunal recorded that he did not give an acceptable reason.
The judgment was therefore that the claim was struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded or recorded in the decision text provided.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The extracted text also states that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The final line giving the date the judgment was sent to the parties appears as '10th September 2002' in the extracted text and is not relied on. | 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.