Case 1803933/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Gibbs v Enfinium Ferrybridge 1 Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803933/2021
- Decision date
- 16 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Gibbs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought a single claim of unfair dismissal against enfinium Ferrybridge 1 Limited. The Tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to bring that complaint.
At a Preliminary Hearing on 22 November 2021, Mr Gibbs accepted that he had not been employed by the Respondent for two years or more. On 23 November 2021 the Tribunal wrote to him warning that it proposed to strike out the claim because it had no reasonable prospect of success for that reason, and gave him until 7 December 2021 to object in writing or request a further hearing.
Mr Gibbs did not respond to that warning. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because section 108 ERA 1996 requires at least two years' service and, at the Preliminary Hearing on 22 November 2021, the Claimant accepted he had not been employed by the Respondent for two years or more. The Claimant did not respond to the Tribunal's subsequent warning letter or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.