Case 2302458/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Britten v HMPPS (Secretary of State for Justice) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302458/2021
- Decision date
- 17 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Britten
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mr A Britten, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against HMPPS (Ministry of Justice). The Employment Judge recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the Claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim and the complaint was struck out. The judgment also noted that the Claimant appeared to believe he could claim automatic unfair dismissal because of a disability, but said that was not correct; it stated only that he could bring a claim relating to his dismissal under the Equality Act 2010. The judgment said the Claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
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, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.