Case 1804739/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Szawlowski v Traffic Agents.com Ltd. — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804739/2023
- Decision date
- 26 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Szawlowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and entitlement to a redundancy payment. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The tribunal therefore held that he was not entitled to bring that complaint.
The same reasoning applied to the redundancy payment complaint. The tribunal said section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 similarly requires not less than two years' service, and that in the absence of any acceptable reason why the requirement did not apply, the redundancy payment claim also had to be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other legally permissible complaints were not affected by this decision and would be dealt with in a separate judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996, and gave no acceptable reason why the requirement should not apply. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to claim a redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996, and gave no acceptable reason to disapply that requirement. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.155 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.