Case 2301719/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M McCourt v FGS Plant Limited Preliminary hearing: 17 December 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301719/2020
- Decision date
- 15 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pritchard Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M McCourt
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M McCourt was dismissed on 28 February 2020 and presented an ET1 on 28 April 2020 alleging unfair dismissal. The respondent applied to have the claim struck out, and the tribunal issued a strike-out warning on 8 April 2021 asking the claimant to explain why the claim should not be struck out given that he had less than two years' employment. The claimant did not reply.
The tribunal noted that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 excludes the ordinary right not to be unfairly dismissed where the employee has not completed two years' continuous employment ending with the effective date of termination. It also noted Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, which allows strike out where a claim has no reasonable prospects of success or is not actively pursued. The claimant had less than two years' service and did not explain any basis for an automatic unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal therefore found that the unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospects of success and had not been actively pursued. The claim was struck out at the preliminary hearing on 17 December 2021. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service and did not respond to the strike-out warning or the tribunal's correspondence. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.