Case 2402304/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Meikle v RG Recruitment Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402304/2020
- Decision date
- 1 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Meikle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s complaint about a redundancy payment. It recorded that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years’ service before a complaint about a redundancy payment can be brought, and found that Mr Meikle had been employed by RG Recruitment Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that Mr Meikle was not entitled to bring the redundancy payment 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 judgment therefore records the complaint as struck out, although the opening sentence also describes it as dismissed.
The tribunal noted that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this judgment. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment opens by saying the complaint about a redundancy payment was dismissed, but the reasons end by stating that it was struck out after the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.155 Employment Rights Act 1996
- strike out for failure to give an acceptable reason
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.