Case 2415245/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Jackson v Auberge Brasserie — 2020
- Case reference
- 2415245/2020
- Decision date
- 15 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Jackson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim form included a complaint of unfair dismissal. Employment Judge Horne held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' continuous employment in order to bring such a complaint, subject to limited exceptions in section 108(3), and the case did not appear to fall within any exception.
The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment stated that it did not affect the remainder of the claimant's claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' continuous employment, no applicable exception appeared to apply, and the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108(3) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.