Case 2305150/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Chenery v Constantine Construction Co. (Medway) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305150/2020
- Decision date
- 20 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Chenery
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr P Chenery, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Constantine Construction Co. (Medway) Ltd. By a letter dated 6 November 2020, the tribunal warned that the claim appeared to be barred by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because a claimant is not ordinarily entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless employed for two years or more, subject to specific exceptions that did not appear to apply.
The tribunal found that Mr Chenery failed to make written representations, failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing in response to that warning. On that basis, the claim was struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded or assessed.
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 ERA 1996 requires two years' employment unless a statutory exception applies, and the claimant did not make sufficient representations in response to the strike-out warning. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.