Case 1804289/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Sanderson v Rothgen Timber Engineering Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1804289/2019
- Decision date
- 6 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keevash Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Sanderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and found that Mr Sanderson had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that he had been given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but he did not provide an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The final sentence states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the judgment, so no finding was made on them in 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 was therefore not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.