Case 2402880/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C R Whittle v Olive And Grape Catering Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402880/2021
- Decision date
- 27 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leach Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C R Whittle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe only complaint dealt with in this judgment was unfair dismissal. Employment Judge Leach recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Mr Whittle had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal found that Mr Whittle was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal also noted that he had been given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not do so.
The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, so no findings were made on them in this judgment and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service, 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- 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.