Case 1406574/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Thick v Hillier Recycling Limited T/a Quickskips — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406574/2020
- Decision date
- 22 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Thick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 08 February 2021, the tribunal gave Mr C Thick an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why his unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal recorded that s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to make representations in writing, had failed to make any sufficient representations, and had not requested a hearing despite being given the opportunity to do so. On that basis, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The judgment was sent to the parties on 22 April 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the claimant did not make written or sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing, in response to the tribunal's letter of 08 February 2021. The tribunal noted the claimant had less than two years' service and referred to s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.