Case 2400102/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Peter Shone v Sibcas Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400102/2023
- Decision date
- 30 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Malik
- Venue
- Manchester ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Peter Shone
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Manchester, before Employment Judge Malik, dealt with the case on 23 March 2023 and sent the judgment to the parties on 30 March 2023. The claimant, Peter Shone, appeared in person and the respondent, Sibcas Limited, was represented by a solicitor.
The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the tribunal found that, at the date employment ended, the claimant had not been continuously employed for two years, which meant the statutory qualifying period in section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not met. No substantive finding on the merits of dismissal was recorded.
The complaint of breach of contract for unpaid expenses was also struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because, at the date employment ended, the claimant had not been continuously employed for two years as required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out because the complaint for unpaid expenses had not been actively pursued. | 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.