Case 2304933/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Reynolds v Sodexo Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304933/2021
- Decision date
- 10 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Reynolds
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had written to the claimant on 06 October 2021 giving him an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The reason given was that the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and no exceptional circumstances had been identified that would exempt him from that qualifying service requirement.
The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claim continues, but it does not identify that claim or determine it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and had not shown any exceptional circumstances exempting him from that requirement. The judgment states that a remaining claim continues, but does not identify or adjudicate that claim. | Struck out | — | — |
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.