Case 2304789/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Miller v Cbre — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304789/2021
- Decision date
- 20 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Miller
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and that Mr L Miller had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason.
The result was that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
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 section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.