Case 1805133/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Parker v Central Wire Industries UK Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1805133/2019
- Decision date
- 17 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Parker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr L Parker, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Central Wire Industries UK Limited. The tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment; it recorded that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the decision.
The tribunal applied section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which requires at least two years' service before a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It found that Mr Parker had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to pursue the unfair dismissal claim.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but the tribunal found that he did not give an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out, and no monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- strike out
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.