Case 2305061/2023 · Employment Tribunal
G D Marshall v D Williams-Polasik O W Crooks — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305061/2023
- Decision date
- 3 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
G D Marshall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that, under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a claimant is not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless employed for two years or more, subject to specified exceptions that did not appear to apply.
At the hearing on 22 March 2024, the claimant agreed that he had been employed for less than two years. A strike-out warning was issued and he was given until 5 April 2024 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out. He did not do so.
The tribunal therefore held that the unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospects of success and struck it out. The judgment also noted that the claimant's complaints of disability discrimination continued, but those complaints were not decided in 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 the claimant had agreed at the hearing on 22 March 2024 that he had been employed for less than two years, no written reasons were provided by the 5 April 2024 deadline, and the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. The judgment stated that the claimant's complaints of disability discrimination continued and were not determined in this decision. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.