Case 2404808/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Henry v Solar Daddy Group — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404808/2024
- Decision date
- 1 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Henry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment. It found that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevents entitlement to a redundancy payment unless the employee has been employed for two years or more, and found that Mr T Henry had been employed by Solar Daddy Group for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that he did not have the right to a redundancy payment. It recorded that he was given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but he did not provide an acceptable reason.
The claim for a redundancy payment was therefore struck out. The tribunal expressly stated that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore did not have the right to a redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996. The tribunal said the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was given. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 155 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.