Case 2408674/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr R Allman v The CS Group Limited — 2023

Case reference: 2408674/2022
Decision date: 15 June 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Leach Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr R Allman

Respondent

The CS Group Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal struck out Mr R Allman's complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal. It found that he had been employed by The CS Group Limited for less than two years, so he was not entitled to bring either complaint. The tribunal referred to s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996 for unfair dismissal and s.92 Employment Rights Act 1996 for the written reasons complaint.

The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaints should not be struck out, but the tribunal found that he did not give an acceptable reason. It therefore ordered that both complaints be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 ERA 1996.	Struck out	—	—
Other	Complaint that the respondent failed to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal; struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to bring the complaint under s.92 ERA 1996.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.