Case 2404735/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Griffiths Mr D Grauzel v Ms G Dumciute — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404735/2024
- Decision date
- 25 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Griffiths Mr D Grauzel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claimants' complaints of unfair dismissal. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service before a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimants had each been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the claimants were not entitled to bring unfair dismissal complaints. The tribunal also recorded that the claimants did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaints were therefore struck out.
The judgment stated that the claimants' 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 judgment states that the claimants' unfair dismissal complaints were struck out because each claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring such a complaint under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also recorded that no acceptable reason was given, despite an opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out. | 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.