Case 2401371/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Chamberlain 1st v Lawton Hotels Limited 2nd Respondent: Hotel Managers Limited 3rd Respondent: Mr Andrejic Zlato — 2024

Case reference: 2401371/2024
Decision date: 20 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Benson

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Chamberlain 1st

Respondent

Lawton Hotels Limited 2nd Respondent: Hotel Managers Limited 3rd Respondent: Mr Andrejic Zlato

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Benson, sitting alone at Liverpool on 30 May 2024, struck out Mr D Chamberlain's unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal said that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.

The judgment records that the claimant did not object to the complaint being struck out. It therefore ordered that the unfair dismissal complaint be struck out. The tribunal also 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	Claim struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 ERA 1996. The claimant did not object to the strike-out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected.	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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.