Case 1805504/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Dunn v Propel Tech Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1805504/2023
- Decision date
- 12 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Dunn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Dunn brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Propel Tech Limited. Employment Judge Lancaster held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but had failed to give an acceptable reason. The tribunal further stated that an alleged failure to comply with the ACAS code of practice was not a relevant statutory right within section 104(4) ERA 1996 and could not therefore found a claim of automatically unfair dismissal under section 104(1).
The judgment accordingly struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It also stated that the claimant's wrongful dismissal complaint was not affected by this judgment and would remain listed, but no decision was made on that claim in this judgment.
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 been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 108 ERA 1996. The tribunal also noted that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that any alleged failure to comply with the ACAS code of practice was not a relevant statutory right for section 104 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.104(1) and s.104(4) 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.