Case 2404627/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr CG Judge v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council — 2023

Case reference: 2404627/2023
Decision date: 21 August 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ainscough Date

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr CG Judge

Respondent

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. Employment Judge Ainscough recorded that the claimant had been employed by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council for less than two years. On that basis, section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.

The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The reasons are dated 4 August 2023 and the judgment was sent to the parties on 21 August 2023.

The judgment also states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded because the unfair dismissal complaint did not proceed.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 ERA 1996 prevented the claim, and he did not give an acceptable reason why it should not be struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected.	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.