Case 2216434/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ellerton v Payello Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2216434/2023
- Decision date
- 16 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ellerton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr A Ellerton's unfair dismissal complaint. In the reasons, Employment Judge Keogh recorded that the Tribunal had written to the claimant on 10 June 2024 giving him an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, because he had not been employed for two years or more and therefore did not satisfy the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant did not make written representations and did not ask for a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment also recorded that the respondent had failed to present a response and that the remaining claim for unlawful deductions from wages may be capable of being determined by a Judge under rule 22 without a hearing. The claimant was directed to provide a Schedule of Loss by 16 April 2025, with gross sums claimed, the basis of calculation, and supporting documentary evidence. The judgment did not finally determine that remaining claim.
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 not shown two years' employment for ordinary unfair dismissal under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, and he did not make written representations or request a hearing after the Tribunal's letter dated 10 June 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 22
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.