Case 1404763/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Farmer v Impact Call Centre Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404763/2021
- Decision date
- 8 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Farmer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because Mr C Farmer could not meet the two-year employment requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that this was the reason the unfair dismissal claim could not proceed.
The tribunal also dismissed the discrimination claims relying on disability. Those claims were dismissed in their entirety as an automatic consequence of the claimant's failure to comply with the terms of the Unless Order dated 16 August 2022. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant could not satisfy the two-year continuous employment requirement in section 108 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed in their entirety as an automatic consequence of the claimant's failure to comply with the terms of the Unless Order dated 16 August 2022. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.