Case 2500544/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Beadnell v Elfab Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500544/2020
- Decision date
- 27 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Members
- Venue
- Newcastle Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Beadnell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary issue in a claim brought by Mr R Beadnell against Elfab Limited for unfair dismissal. The claimant said his employment began on 30 September 2019 and ended when he was dismissed on 17 February 2020. The tribunal recorded that the dismissal followed a meeting about social media posts made by the claimant, which he acknowledged, and that the respondent decided to dismiss him on the basis that his conduct meant he had not satisfactorily completed probation.
The tribunal applied section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant had not completed two years' continuous service by the effective date of termination, and that the circumstances of the dismissal did not fall within any of the exceptions in section 108(3). On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint.
The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' continuous service as at the effective termination date, and that none of the section 108(3) exceptions applied. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.108(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.94 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.