Case 1602370/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Jones v RSD Technology Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602370/2023
- Decision date
- 3 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required the claimant to have at least two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that Mr K Jones had been employed by RSD Technology Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to pursue an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity, the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out on 2 April 2024, with the judgment sent to the parties on 3 April 2024.
The judgment expressly states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also noted that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected. | 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.