Case 1806037/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Stainton v H&H Equestrian Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806037/2022
- Decision date
- 16 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Stainton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant’s claim for a statutory redundancy payment. It held that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant there was no entitlement to a redundancy payment unless the employee had been employed for two years or more.
The tribunal found that Mr A Stainton had been employed by H&H Equestrian Services Ltd for less than two years. On that basis, it concluded that he did not have the right to a statutory redundancy payment and struck out that claim. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided. The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the statutory redundancy payment claim because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore did not have the right to a redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.