Case 1801636/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Byrne v Night Owl Group Limited (Callum Smith) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801636/2022
- Decision date
- 11 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Byrne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Mr D Byrne against Night Owl Group Limited (Callum Smith). It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it held that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he failed to give an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment notes that the claimant's other complaints were determined in a Rule 21 judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21 Judgment
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.