Case 2402770/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Senior v Fox Brother Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402770/2022
- Decision date
- 21 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Senior
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal decided the complaint of unfair dismissal should be struck out because Mr A Senior had not been continuously employed for two years ending with the effective date of termination. The reasons state that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 limits the right to bring an unfair dismissal claim in the absence of two years' continuous employment, subject to exceptions.
The Tribunal recorded that none of the section 108 exceptions appeared to apply. It issued a letter on 21 July 2022 giving the claimant until 4 August 2022 to show cause why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out, but he did not reply. The judgment states that the strike-out did not affect the claimant's ability to pursue the remainder of the claim, and it separately notes that this did not affect any complaint that the respondent discriminated against him.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant was not continuously employed for two years ending with the effective date of termination, and no section 108 ERA 1996 exception appeared to apply. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.