Case 1406445/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Adams v Elliot Brothers Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1406445/2023
- Decision date
- 16 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied on 22 November 2024 to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint, saying the claimant did not have two years' service and did not fall within an exception to the two-year qualifying period in s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal referred to the claimant's email of 21 November 2024 and concluded that the statutory exception did not appear to apply on that basis.
By letter dated 11 December 2024, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the complaint should not be struck out, with a reply due by 10.00 am on 16 December 2024. The claimant did not make representations or request a hearing, and the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The hearing listed for 17 December 2024 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent applied to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint on the basis that the claimant did not have two years' service and did not fall within an exception to the qualifying period under s.108 ERA 1996. The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing, but no response was received. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal
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.