Case 2405624/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Pennington v Blackbelt Smartphone Defence Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2405624/2023
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Pennington
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It found that Mr G Pennington had been employed by Blackbelt Smartphone Defence Ltd for less than two years, so he did not satisfy the service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for bringing an unfair dismissal claim.
Because that statutory threshold was not met, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed. It also recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It stated that the claimant's remaining complaint was not affected by this judgment and would proceed to be heard on a date to be provided to the parties.
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 section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service, and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant also failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.