Case 2408088/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hutchfield v Choice Hotels Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408088/2022
- Decision date
- 9 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hutchfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Hutchfield brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Choice Hotels Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the claimant lacked the necessary qualifying service, the tribunal found that he was not entitled to pursue the proceedings. It also recorded that he had been given the opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not done so. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim without recording any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 ERA 1996. He 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.