Case 1803299/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Brookes v Coco Sunbeds Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1803299/2023
- Decision date
- 11 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Brookes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr L Brookes, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Coco Sunbeds Ltd. The tribunal recorded that he had been employed for less than two years. It identified the statutory qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and noted that only limited exceptions can disapply that requirement.
Mr Brookes was given an opportunity to explain why his unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal found that none of the reasons he gave fell within any of the statutory exceptions to the two-year service requirement. It therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and none of the stated exceptions to the two-year qualifying period applied, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.