Mr JM Burdess v Steven Marston — 2020

Case reference: 2414705/2019
Decision date: 29 January 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Franey

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr JM Burdess

Respondent

Steven Marston

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' continuous service for an unfair dismissal claim, and that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. On that basis, the claimant was not entitled to bring the complaint.

The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held the claimant had less than two years' continuous service, so section 108 ERA 1996 meant he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.	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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.