Case 2402409/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Boardman v Swanton Care — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402409/2024
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Boardman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Boardman's claim against Swanton Care was struck out. The tribunal recorded that the only claim apparent on the claim form was unfair dismissal. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal decided that the claimant was not entitled to bring the proceedings. 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 stated that the claim would terminate the proceedings, and invited the claimant to identify within 7 days if he believed any other claims had in fact been made in the claim form.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint and found the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It said he had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.