Case 2303222/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Williams v Ontrak Recruitment and Training — 2022

Case reference: 2303222/2022
Decision date: 7 December 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tsamados Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Williams

Respondent

Ontrak Recruitment and Training

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

By letter dated 7 November 2022, the tribunal told Mr A Williams that his unfair dismissal complaint might be struck out because he did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and there were no exceptional circumstances giving an exemption from the qualifying period. He was given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on that issue.

Mr Williams did not make sufficient representations and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claims would be listed for hearing in due course, but it does not determine those claims in this decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not appear to have two years' qualifying service under section 108 ERA 1996 and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the strike-out warning.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.