Case 2500940/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Lowes v Platinum Windows NE Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500940/2024
- Decision date
- 16 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Lowes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Claimant was not continuously employed under a contract of employment for at least two years by the effective date of termination on 09 April 2024. It therefore held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the claims for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996, and those claims were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant's claim for wrongful dismissal, described as failure to give or pay notice, was well-founded and succeeded. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Claimant the net sum of £600.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant did not have at least two years' continuous employment as at the effective date of termination, so it lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the Tribunal found the Claimant did not have at least two years' continuous employment as at the effective date of termination, so it lacked jurisdiction under section 163 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment describes this as wrongful dismissal for failure to give or pay notice and awards the net sum of £600. | Upheld | — | £600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £600
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 163 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.