Case 2500999/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Hunter v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2500999/2019
- Decision date
- 8 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris Representation
- Venue
- North Shields Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Hunter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that at the material time the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal held that the claimant could not rely on the right not to be unfairly dismissed under Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because he had not been continuously employed for at least two years by the effective date of termination. It further found that the asserted dismissal did not fall within any of the exceptions to that qualifying period in Section 108(3) of the Act.
The complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed was therefore dismissed. No monetary remedy was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment and the asserted dismissal did not fall within the statutory exceptions in Section 108(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 108(3) 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.