Case 2201080/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201080/2020
- Decision date
- 4 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr de Chaumont-Rambert, Ms Kilgannon
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case on 19 and 20 October 2020 before Employment Judge Stout, Mr de Chaumont-Rambert and Ms Kilgannon. It gave a unanimous judgment dismissing both claims. The claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the claimant did not have two years' continuous service as an employee. For that reason, the tribunal held that he did not have the right to claim unfair dismissal under s 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the claim was dismissed as not well-founded.
On the age discrimination claim, the tribunal found that the respondent did not discriminate against the claimant because of age, contrary to ss 13 and 39 of the Equality Act 2010. That claim was also dismissed.
The tribunal also made a costs order under Rule 76, ordering the claimant to pay the respondent £2,500 in respect of its costs of the unfair dismissal claim within 14 days of the date of the judgment, namely by 4 November 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' continuous service and therefore did not have the right to claim unfair dismissal under s 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The tribunal found the respondent did not discriminate against the claimant because of age in contravention of ss 13 and 39 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss 13 and 39 Equality Act 2010
- Rule 76
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.