Case 2500127/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Barker v A R Wholesale Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500127/2023
- Decision date
- 15 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McGregor Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Barker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Barker was employed by A R Wholesale Ltd as an HGV driver from 1 November 2021 until 2 December 2022. He was dismissed on 2 December 2022 for misconduct said to involve negative conduct with other staff and customers, and he received one week’s pay in lieu of notice.
The claim before the tribunal was one of unfair dismissal. The tribunal set out the statutory position under s.94 and s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, noting that a claimant generally needs two years’ continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless a statutory exception applies.
The tribunal found that Mr Barker had only one year, one month and one week of service, so he did not meet the two-year qualifying period. It considered his written and oral submissions, but he could not identify any statutory exception under s.108(3) to (5), and he was not advancing a case that the dismissal was automatically unfair.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it had no jurisdiction to consider it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant had one year, one month and one week of service and did not fall within any s.108 ERA 1996 exception. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.108(3) to (5) 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.