Mr L Jones v Elle R Leisure — 2024

Case reference: 2400078/2024
Decision date: 13 March 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Shotter Date

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr L Jones

Respondent

Elle R Leisure

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr L Jones, presented a complaint of unfair dismissal against Elle R Leisure. The tribunal recorded that the complaint was struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and the claimant had been employed for less than two years.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not provide an acceptable reason. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.

The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the claim should not be struck out.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.