Case 2408698/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hurst v Cableworld Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408698/2020
- Decision date
- 25 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Peck
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hurst
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Peck sitting alone in Manchester, Mr J Hurst brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Cableworld Limited under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that the hearing took place by video and that the claimant was unrepresented, while the respondent was represented by its legal manager.
The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought. It found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so he was not entitled to pursue the claim. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he provided no such reason.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had not presented facts from which a complaint under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 could be pursued. For those reasons, the unfair dismissal claim was struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing. The tribunal found the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. He was given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but did not do so, and he had not set out facts from which a section 104 ERA 1996 complaint could proceed. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 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.