Case 2304809/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Kosky & Others v Basketdrop Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304809/2021
- Decision date
- 8 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Kosky & Others
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal after receiving the ET1 claim form on 15 September 2021. It found that the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that no exceptional circumstances providing an exemption to that qualifying service period applied.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had failed to make written representations, or sufficient representations, as to why the complaint should not be struck out, and had not requested a hearing. The judgment states that the same decision applies to all other claimants party to the claim.
The judgment expressly provides that the claimant's and the other claimants' remaining claims continue. It does not determine those remaining claims or make any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and no exceptional circumstances providing an exemption were identified. The judgment states this applies to all other claimants party to the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the claimant's and other claimants' remaining claims continue, but it does not adjudicate those claims in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
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.