Case 2306875/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Pitman v Anytime Fitness — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306875/2024
- Decision date
- 27 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Pitman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment deals only with the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint. On 23 September 2024 the Tribunal wrote to Mr Pitman inviting representations or a hearing on why that complaint should not be struck out, because it appeared from the claim that he had been employed for less than two years and the Tribunal could not consider the unfair dismissal complaint if that were so.
Mr Pitman did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, in response. The Tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment records that the claimant’s remaining claim was still listed for hearing on 14 February 2025. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 23 September 2024 to make representations or request a hearing because it appeared from the claim that he had been employed for less than two years. He did not make sufficient representations, and the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.