Case 2400520/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr HS Gill v Warrington Borough Transport Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400520/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr HS Gill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. In a letter dated 3 May 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should not be struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success, the tribunal noting that the claimant did not have the two years' service required for such a claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. For that reason, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out.
The reasons note that the claimant's remaining claims were listed for a preliminary hearing on 14 September 2022, which was a case management hearing and not a final hearing of those claims. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out on the tribunal's own initiative because the claimant was said not to have the two years' service required for an unfair dismissal claim and did not make sufficient representations, or request a hearing, in response to the 3 May 2022 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 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.