Case 2407448/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Bell v Fox Networking UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407448/2023
- Decision date
- 18 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Bell had been employed by Fox Networking UK Ltd for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. The reasons also record that Mr Bell was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not give an acceptable reason. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the 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 complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.