Case 2404903/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lockett v Minstrell Recruitment Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2404903/2019
- Decision date
- 13 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lockett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Lockett brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Minstrell Recruitment Ltd. Employment Judge Franey, sitting alone at Manchester on 11 November 2019, dismissed the claim.
The tribunal held that the claim could not proceed because the claimant had not complied with section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, which required contact with ACAS before instituting proceedings complaining of unfair dismissal. The tribunal also found that, in any event, the claimant had not been continuously employed for at least two years ending with the effective date of termination in June 2018, so he did not have the qualifying service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had not complied with section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996 by contacting ACAS before issuing the claim and, in any event, had not accrued two years' continuous employment ending with the effective date of termination in June 2018 as required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 18A Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- 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.