Case 2305354/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Metiisto Design Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305354/2021
- Decision date
- 15 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Crotty, brought claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against Metiisto Design Ltd. On 26 September 2022 the tribunal wrote to him, referring him to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the requirement for two years' qualifying service for an unfair dismissal claim, because it appeared from the claim form that he had been employed for less than two years.
The claimant responded that his employment had been terminated because of absences caused by a brain tumour and that he had been discriminated against because of disability. The tribunal held that, even if the dismissal was an act of discrimination, a claimant still requires two years' employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim. It therefore struck out and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment stated that it had no impact on the disability discrimination claims, which could include a claim that the dismissal was an act of disability discrimination, and those claims were to proceed to a preliminary hearing already listed for 14 April 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said the unfair dismissal claim was struck out and dismissed because the claimant appeared to have less than two years' service under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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.