Case 1806586/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Wynne v DHL Colgate — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806586/2021
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Wynne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant, Mr M Wynne, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against DHL Colgate. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal claim. It also recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not done so. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded or assessed 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 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- section 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.
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.