Case 2408494/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Bell v Julie Forde — 2020
- Case reference
- 2408494/2020
- Decision date
- 4 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr G Bell, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against the respondent, Julie Forde. The tribunal held that the complaint could not proceed because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal found that Mr Bell had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it concluded that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint and struck out that complaint. The tribunal also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity, the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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.