Case 2413698/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Farrand v Late Life Planning Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2413698/2019
- Decision date
- 2 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Farrand
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr T Farrand, brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Late Life Planning Ltd. The tribunal identified section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as requiring at least two years' service for such a claim.
It found that Mr Farrand had been employed for less than two years. The tribunal therefore concluded that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal proceedings and, after giving him an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, found that he had not given an acceptable reason.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claims would proceed, but it does not identify or determine those claims in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, found that the claimant had less than two years' service, and struck out the claim after the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why it 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.