Case 2303273/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Crease v Lions Hastings Pier Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 2303273/2018
- Decision date
- 17 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Bryant QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Crease
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim because he did not have two years' continuous service, which section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires for that claim. The judgment was issued under Rule 21 and was made without a response from the respondent.
The tribunal entered judgment in favour of the claimant on his claims for unauthorised deduction from wages and holiday pay because no response had been received from the respondent in accordance with the Employment Tribunal Rules. The judgment did not determine the amount due on those claims at that stage.
Remedy for the wages and holiday pay claims was left to a later remedy hearing. The judgment also recorded that the respondent would only be entitled to take part in that hearing to the extent permitted by the employment judge who hears the case.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service as required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | No response was received from the respondent, so judgment was entered in favour of the claimant. Remedy was to be determined at a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | No response was received from the respondent, so judgment was entered in favour of the claimant. Remedy was to be determined at a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 21
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.