Case 1803344/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Dargle v Bob Devine — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803344/2022
- Decision date
- 26 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Dargle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr F Dargle's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that the claimant had been employed by Bob Devine for less than two years.
The claimant made representations by email on 15 August 2022 as to why the complaint should not be struck out, but the tribunal said this was not an acceptable reason. The judgment also noted that a complaint of victimisation is a different type of complaint under the Equality Act 2010 and was being dealt with separately by letter, but no determination on that claim appears in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and the tribunal found the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The tribunal noted the claimant's email representations of 15 August 2022 but found they did not provide an acceptable reason to avoid strike-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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.