Case 2400231/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Peters v Mitie Limited — 2024

Case reference: 2400231/2024
Decision date: 5 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Johnson Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Peters

Respondent

Mitie Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr D Peters, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Mitie. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Peters had been employed for less than two years.

On that basis, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also found that he had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore 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 section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service, that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, and that no acceptable reason was given why the complaint 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.

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.