Case 2402866/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Breddy v JSA Property Holdings Ltd and 1 other — 2023

Case reference: 2402866/2023
Decision date: 2 May 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Johnson Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

Mr J Breddy

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr J Breddy, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against JSA Property Holdings Ltd and Bryan Adam Regan. Employment Judge Johnson held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.

The tribunal found that Mr Breddy had been employed for less than two years. It therefore concluded that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant was given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not do so.

The judgment accordingly struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.