Case 2413289/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Howard v Hyndburn Homes Repairs Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2413289/2020
- Decision date
- 24 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Howard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Howard brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Hyndburn Homes Repairs Limited. Employment Judge Ross held that the claim was dismissed because the claimant did not have sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim and, accordingly, the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear it.
The judgment records that the claim was brought under sections 95 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No merits finding on the dismissal itself was made, because the case was disposed of on the jurisdiction point.
The written record also notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. The decision was sent to the parties on 24 November 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have sufficient service to bring the claim, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 95 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.