Case 1405822/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Terry v SSGC Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1405822/2019
- Decision date
- 31 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Terry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment by Employment Judge Livesey. The tribunal dismissed Mr D Terry's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to present an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Terry had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, he was not entitled to bring the claim. The judgment also noted that he had been given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be dismissed, but none was given.
The tribunal upheld the complaint about holiday entitlement. It found that the respondent had failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement and ordered SSGC Limited to pay £1,964.91. The reasons state that the claimant's calculations in his email of 19 January were used to calculate the entitlement. No separate award structure beyond that sum is set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under section 108 ERA 1996 because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The respondent was found to have failed to pay the claimant's holiday entitlement. The judgment says the claimant's calculations in his email of 19 January were used to calculate the entitlement. | Upheld | — | £1,965 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,965
- across all upheld claims
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.