Case 1802657/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Elam v Aspect Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802657/2022
- Decision date
- 1 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Elam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal against Aspect Services Limited. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the claimant did not have the necessary qualifying service, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not given an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment and would proceed to a final hearing.
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 and so was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.