Case 2403666/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Hughes Mrs B Hughes v The Committee — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403666/2024
- Decision date
- 29 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Hughes Mrs B Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimants' unfair dismissal complaints should be struck out. It found that they had been employed for less than two years, so they did not meet the qualifying service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for bringing an unfair dismissal claim.
The claimants were given an opportunity to explain why the complaints should not be struck out, but they did not give an acceptable reason. They said they wished to pursue constructive dismissal, and the tribunal recorded that constructive dismissal is a type of unfair dismissal claim and remains subject to the two-year service requirement.
The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaints are struck out. It also records that the claimants' other complaints are not affected by this judgment.
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 claimants had less than two years' service and therefore were not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 ERA 1996. The claimants said they wished to pursue constructive dismissal, but the tribunal noted that this is a type of unfair dismissal claim and the two-year service requirement still applied. | 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.