Case 2305145/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Deacon v WPM Internet Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305145/2020
- Decision date
- 9 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Deacon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr R Deacon's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that he had been employed by WPM Internet Ltd for less than two years.
Because the claimant was not entitled to bring the complaint, and had not given an acceptable reason when invited by the tribunal's letter dated 25 November 2020 to explain why the claim should not be struck out, the tribunal ordered that the unfair dismissal complaint be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
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 less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.