Case 2407167/2024 · Employment Tribunal
S J Warburton v Neil Topping trading as Tyne Insulation Supplies — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407167/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S J Warburton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the complaint of unfair dismissal. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that S J Warburton had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to pursue the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was given.
Accordingly, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints, of breach of contract and wages, were not affected by this decision and would proceed to a hearing on a date to be fixed.
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 ERA 1996 requires at least two years' service, and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | 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.