Case 1803734/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Ratcliffe v JYSK Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803734/2019
- Decision date
- 30 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Ratcliffe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr O Ratcliffe’s claim form did not tick any of the section 8 boxes to identify the type of claim being brought. The claim said he had been dismissed 'to protect the companies image and reputation' and referred to his criminal record. The Tribunal treated the matter as an unfair dismissal claim and wrote to the Claimant on 16 July 2019 inviting representations on why it should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success, because he did not have the requisite two years’ service to qualify for unfair dismissal.
The Claimant’s written representations on 25 July 2019 did not provide any details showing entitlement to bring an unfair dismissal claim. On 2 September 2019 the Respondent applied to have the claim struck out. The Claimant later said on 11 September 2019 that his dismissal was 'by way of a protected characteristic' under the Equality Act 2010, but he did not explain which protected characteristic he relied upon. The Tribunal wrote again on 19 September 2019 and gave him until 25 September 2019 to provide reasons, but he did not respond.
On 30 September 2019 Employment Judge Cox Date concluded that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The reasons were that the Claimant had insufficient service to qualify for an unfair dismissal claim and had not identified the protected characteristic necessary to make out an Equality Act 2010 discrimination claim. The judgment records that the claim was struck out and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal treated the claim as one of unfair dismissal. It struck out the claim because the Claimant had insufficient service with the Respondent to qualify to claim unfair dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The Claimant said on 11 September 2019 that his dismissal was 'by way of a protected characteristic' under the Equality Act 2010, but he did not identify what protected characteristic he relied upon. The Tribunal struck out this aspect because it had no reasonable prospect of success and the Claimant did not respond to the further opportunity to explain his case. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
- two years' service requirement
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.