Case 2400111/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Dullenty v Sapphire Utility Solutions — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400111/2020
- Decision date
- 29 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sherratt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Dullenty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It recorded that Mr J Dullenty had been employed by Sapphire Utility Solutions for less than two years, and that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
Because the claimant did not meet the qualifying service requirement, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but had failed to give an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented him from bringing an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason for the complaint not to be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.