Case 1803647/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Smith v Canal & River Trust — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803647/2021
- Decision date
- 14 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Wade struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant had been asked on 10 September 2021 to show cause why the claim should not be struck out because he did not appear to have two years' qualifying service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or to request a hearing.
In response, the claimant argued that there is no qualifying period for an automatically unfair dismissal claim and that a dismissal related to a protected characteristic would be automatically unfair. The tribunal rejected that submission, stating that section 108(3) ERA 1996 sets out the cases where the two-year qualifying period does not apply, and that dismissal connected with a protected characteristic is not one of them for an unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal said the claimant could pursue a complaint that the dismissal was unlawful and discriminatory under section 39(2)(c) of the Equality Act 2010, as identified in the annex to the earlier order, but that was a different claim from unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint. The reasons note that the claimant's remaining claim were listed for hearing on 22 to 25 March 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal held there was no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint. The reasons also said a dismissal related to a protected characteristic would not itself disapply the qualifying period for an unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.108(3) ERA 1996
- s.39(2)(c) Equality Act 2010
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.