Case 2302457/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Simon Adams v Sevco 5075 Ltd T/a FASTSIGNS Hammersmith — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302457/2021
- Decision date
- 5 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rahman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Simon Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Simon Adams, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Sevco 5075 Ltd t/a FASTSIGNS Hammersmith. The tribunal recorded that the claim was for unfair dismissal only.
The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint, unless the case is one of automatic unfair dismissal for a prohibited reason. It found that Mr Adams had been employed for less than two years and was not bringing a claim for automatic unfair dismissal.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the proceedings and struck out the unfair dismissal claim. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 ERA 1996 required at least two years' service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and that the claimant had less than two years' service and was not bringing an automatic unfair dismissal claim. | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.