Case 2303228/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Houkes v Logistics Brighton — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303228/2022
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Houkes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 4 November 2022, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the unfair dismissal complaint should be struck out. The stated reason was that the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and there were no exceptional circumstances providing an exemption from that qualifying period.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The reasons also record that the claimant's remaining claim continued and that a notice of hearing would be sent out in due course.
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 after concluding the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and no exceptional circumstances exempting him from that period were identified. The claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing in response to the strike-out warning. | 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.