Case 2402832/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Ullock v Integral UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402832/2024
- Decision date
- 4 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Ullock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr G Ullock brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Integral UK Ltd. The tribunal recorded that his claim form stated he had been employed from 13 February 2023 to 31 March 2024, which was less than two years' continuous employment.
The tribunal held that an employee must have at least two years' continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations about why the claim should not be struck out, but he did not provide any good reason beyond questioning the need for the two-year requirement, and he did not request a hearing.
The tribunal found that the two-year requirement is contained in section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it had no power to vary or disapply it. It concluded that it therefore had no jurisdiction over the claim and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, so the unfair dismissal claim was struck out under Rule 37.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal. The tribunal held he did not have the two years' continuous employment required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, so the claim was outside its jurisdiction and had no reasonable prospect of success. It was struck out under Rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37
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.