Case 2401583/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Walsh v Choice Hotels Limited t/a Cliffs Hotel — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401583/2024
- Decision date
- 7 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dennehy Date
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Walsh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with two complaints. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant did not have two years' employment, so the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The equality claim was brought under the Equality Act 2010 in relation to marriage or civil partnership. The tribunal recorded that the complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant, and noted that he was neither in a marriage nor civil partnership.
No monetary remedy was awarded, and the written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No further findings or remedy assessment are set out in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996 because the claimant did not have two years' employment and the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The judgment says this complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. The tribunal also recorded that he was neither in a marriage nor civil partnership. | Dismissed | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
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.