Case 1600552/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Evans v What Plus Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600552/2023
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with a claim for unfair dismissal brought by Mr J Evans against What Plus Ltd. By letter dated 16 May 2023, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations as to why the claim should not be struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 appeared to bar the claim if he had not been employed for two years or more, subject to exceptions that did not seem to apply.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Sharp struck out the claim. The judgment records no hearing on the merits and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because, under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the claimant did not appear to have the qualifying two years' service and had not made sufficient written representations or requested a hearing in response to the strike-out warning letter dated 16 May 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.