Case 2407243/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K De-More v Wincanton Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407243/2023
- Decision date
- 19 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K De-More
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and unpaid holiday pay against Wincanton Group Ltd.
The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years and had not provided an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out. The claimant explained that he did not wish to pursue the holiday pay claim further, and that claim was dismissed upon withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the claim for unpaid holiday pay was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.