Case 2302973/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Mitchell v Marshall Motor Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302973/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Youngs Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Mitchell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant did not have two years' service and therefore did not satisfy the qualifying period for an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, it held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim and dismissed it.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's claim for unlawful deductions from wages. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not set out further reasoning on that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have two years' service and did not meet the qualifying period under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim for unlawful deductions from wages failed and was dismissed. No further written reasons are included in the judgment text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.