Case 2405907/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Wilkinson v The Reclaimed Flooring Company — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405907/2021
- Decision date
- 23 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Wilkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal and concluded that it could not proceed because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought. The judgment recorded that Mr J Wilkinson had been employed by The Reclaimed Flooring Company for less than two years.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. No compensation or other monetary award was made in this judgment.
The judgment also stated that the claimant's other complaints of breach of contract (notice)/wrongful dismissal and accrued but untaken annual leave were not affected by the decision. Those claims were not determined in this judgment.
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 two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints of breach of contract (notice)/wrongful dismissal and accrued but untaken annual leave were not affected by this judgment. | 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.