Case 2302034/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Jones v IOR Group Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302034/2020
- Decision date
- 25 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr S Jones's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that the claimant had been employed by IOR Group Ltd for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that the claimant was given the opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was given.
The judgment is limited to the strike-out of the unfair dismissal claim and states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
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 complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The judgment states that the claimant was given an opportunity to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not do so. The judgment also states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.
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.