Case 2201536/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr J Stewart (solicitor) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201536/2022
- Decision date
- 27 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout Representations
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing at London Central by video on 27 September 2022, before Employment Judge Stout, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Mr J Stewart, the tribunal considered strike-out issues under Rule 37(1)(a). The judgment records two claims: unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out because he did not have two years' qualifying service as required by s 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal stated that there was therefore no prospect of success on that claim.
The respondent's application to strike out the age discrimination claim was refused. The extracted judgment does not include the oral reasons given at the hearing, and it states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in writing within 14 days. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service as required by s 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so there was no prospect of success on the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The respondent's application to strike out the age discrimination claim under Rule 37(1)(a) was refused. The judgment records that reasons were given orally and written reasons would not be provided unless requested. | Other | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- s 108(1) of the 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.