Case 1600503/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Wall v Llamau Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600503/2020
- Decision date
- 29 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Wall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike out judgment under rule 37. The Tribunal gave the claimant, by letter dated 26 March 2020, an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The stated concern was that under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 a claimant is not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless employed for two years or more, except in certain specific circumstances, and that the claim appeared to show less than two years' service.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claim(s) remained listed for hearing on 30 April 2020. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the Tribunal identified a possible section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 bar because the claim appeared to show less than two years' service. The claimant did not make written representations, make sufficient representations, or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- section 108 of the 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.