Case 2402035/2024 · Employment Tribunal
J Ward v Greater Manchester Sports Clubs Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402035/2024
- Decision date
- 28 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Ward
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 23 October 2024 before Employment Judge Batten, the tribunal dealt with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. The respondent was represented by its director, M Haroon, and the claimant appeared in person.
The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It found that Mr Ward had been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to pursue the unfair dismissal claim.
The claimant was given an opportunity in discussion at the hearing to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. The tribunal accordingly struck out the unfair dismissal complaint for lack of jurisdiction.
The judgment records that the claimant's other complaints, of race discrimination, unpaid wages and commissions, notice pay and holiday pay, were not determined at this hearing and were listed to proceed to final hearing on 6 to 8 August 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at a preliminary hearing because the claimant had less than 2 years' service and therefore was not entitled to pursue an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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.