Case 2403600/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Morrison v Bcs Automotive — 2020
- Case reference
- 2403600/2020
- Decision date
- 26 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Morrison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr R Morrison, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against BCS Automotive. The tribunal 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 Morrison had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. On that basis, it concluded that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
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 section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected. | 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.