Case 2417178/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Stanley v Darren Jones and Mathew Jones t/a Pillowtalk — 2019
- Case reference
- 2417178/2018
- Decision date
- 26 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Stanley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to pay a redundancy payment. It recorded that the claimant, Mr J Stanley, had been employed by the respondents for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal said section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented him from bringing those complaints. It also found that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the claimant had not provided an acceptable reason why the complaints should not be struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out on the same basis as the unfair dismissal complaint: the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to bring a redundancy payment complaint. | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.