Case 2301309/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Carl Walton Dunks v Halcyon Group — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301309/2024
- Decision date
- 15 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Carl Walton Dunks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Fowell struck out Mr Carl Walton Dunks's unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The reason given was that, by letter dated 29 January 2024, the tribunal had invited the claimant to make representations or request a hearing on the basis that he did not have the necessary two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim and therefore had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The hearing listed for 5 and 9 August 2024 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal considered the claim had no reasonable prospects of success; the claimant was said not to have the necessary two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- no reasonable prospects of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.