Case 2300741/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Davison v Primelink Transport Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300741/2023
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Davison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 13 March 2023, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The stated issue was section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, namely that a claimant is not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless employed for two years or more, subject to specified exemptions.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant responded by correspondence dated 16 March 2023, but that this did not make sufficient representations as to why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out and did not request a hearing on that issue. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The reasons also state that the claimant's remaining claim would continue and that the tribunal would give notice of hearing in due course. No monetary award was made 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 after inviting representations by letter dated 13 March 2023. It recorded that the claimant's 16 March 2023 correspondence did not provide sufficient representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.