Case 1600767/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F D Connor-Hughes v Dew Street Dental Practice Ltd. — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600767/2024
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F D Connor-Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claim for unauthorised deductions from wages upon withdrawal. It held that Mr Connor-Hughes had not been employed by Dew Street Dental Practice Ltd for a continuous period of two years ending with his dismissal on 23 November 2023, so he could not pursue an unfair dismissal claim under ss.94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. The tribunal added that, if jurisdiction had existed, it would have struck out the unfair dismissal claim on the respondent's application because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant's application to amend his sex discrimination by way of harassment claim to cover the period June 2022 to August 2023 was refused. The tribunal held that the application was out of time, that it would not be just and equitable to extend time to the date of the application or to the hearing date, and that the proposed claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
The respondent's strike-out application succeeded in relation to the sex discrimination by way of harassment claim for February/March 2023 and the claim for failure to provide itemised pay statements. Both were struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had not been employed for a continuous period of two years ending with his dismissal on 23 November 2023, so he could not pursue an unfair dismissal claim under ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996 and the tribunal had no jurisdiction. It said that, if it had jurisdiction, it would have struck out the claim for no reasonable prospect of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The respondent's strike-out application was granted for sex discrimination by way of harassment (February/March 2023). The claimant's application to amend the harassment claim to cover June 2022-August 2023 was refused as out of time, with no just and equitable extension and no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Other | The respondent's strike-out application was granted for failure to provide itemised pay statements, on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.94 and s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable extension of time
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.