Case 2500110/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Jake Arkley v Vantec Europe Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500110/2022
- Decision date
- 7 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jake Arkley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningJake Arkley's complaint of unfair dismissal against Vantec Europe Limited was dismissed. The tribunal found that he had been employed from 31 August 2021 to 16 December 2021, so he had less than two years' continuous employment at the date of dismissal.
The tribunal had written to the claimant on 16 March 2022 explaining that a qualifying period of two years was required for an unfair dismissal complaint unless one of the exceptions in section 108(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied, and that none appeared to apply on the information before it. The claimant did not respond by the deadline of 5 April 2022, and the tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment stated that it did not affect the complaint of disability discrimination.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and the tribunal said the s.108(3) exceptions did not appear to apply. The claimant did not respond to the tribunal's March 2022 letter inviting objections. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108(3) ERA 1996
- two years' continuous employment
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.