Case 2411379/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Perrett v Betfred Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411379/2023
- Decision date
- 21 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Perrett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Perrett presented a complaint of unfair dismissal against Betfred Limited. The tribunal first identified the correct respondent name as Betfred Limited.
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. It found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so he was not entitled to pursue the complaint.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but the tribunal found that he did not give an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out, and no remedy was awarded.
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, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- strike out
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.