Case 2415440/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Charlton v Neighbourhood Food Larder — 2020
- Case reference
- 2415440/2020
- Decision date
- 14 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Charlton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr B Charlton brought a claim for unfair dismissal against Neighbourhood Food Larder. The tribunal noted that the claim form also ticked a box for “other payments”, but the form did not make clear what legally recognisable claim, if any, was intended under that heading.
The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, subject to limited exceptions in section 108(3). It found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the information in the claim form was insufficient to show that any section 108(3) exception applied, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment was issued without a hearing and the claim was struck out. No monetary award was made.
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 the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and the claim form did not show that any exception in section 108(3) ERA 1996 applied. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108(3) 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.