Case 2307382/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Jones v Turtle Bay UK — 2021
- Case reference
- 2307382/2020
- Decision date
- 13 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 16 December 2020, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal then concluded that the claimant did not have the two years' qualifying service required for an unfair dismissal claim and that none of the exceptions in s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996 applied.
The judgment header records that the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. In the reasons, the tribunal also stated that this part of the claim was dismissed because the qualifying service requirement was not met. No monetary award was made.
The claimant also asked the tribunal to order that she be put back on furlough. The tribunal held that this request was not within its jurisdiction and dismissed that part of the claim. The remaining claim or claims were left listed for hearing on 10 August 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment header states that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. In the reasons, the tribunal said the claimant did not have the two years' qualifying service required for unfair dismissal and that none of the exceptions in s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996 applied. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The claimant asked the tribunal to order that she be put back on furlough. The tribunal said that request was not within its jurisdiction and dismissed that part of the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- s.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.