Case 1801182/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Spittal v Bilton and District Royal British Legion Club — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801182/2020
- Decision date
- 27 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Spittal
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr Spittal's unfair dismissal complaint. It found that he had been employed by Bilton and District Royal British Legion Club for less than two years, so section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant he could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim unless an exception applied.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. It specifically noted that having health and safety responsibilities was not itself an exception, and that the claimant did not say he had been dismissed for raising health and safety concerns.
The judgment therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint by striking it out. It also noted that it was not clear whether the claim included other complaints, and ordered the claimant to provide further information about that issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the tribunal found the claimant had less than two years' service and had not shown any exception to the qualifying period under section 108 ERA 1996. The tribunal also noted it was not clear whether the claim included other complaints and ordered the claimant to provide further information. | 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.