Case 2300345/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. D Brown v Apollo Building Services Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300345/2020
- Decision date
- 12 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. D Brown
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Brown brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Apollo Building Services Ltd. The matter was heard remotely by Employment Judge Tsamados sitting alone on 12 June 2020. The respondent was represented by Ms A Nicholls and the claimant attended with his mother, Mrs C Brown.
The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. On the evidence before it, the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The tribunal therefore found that he was not entitled to bring the proceedings.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The claim was accordingly struck out. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.