Case 2600240/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Hornblow v Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600240/2023
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Hornblow
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Hornblow’s complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed by Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing Association Ltd for less than two years.
The judgment records that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable legal reason. The claimant’s email of 3 March 2023 was said not to explain why the two-year qualification period did not apply.
The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 ERA 1996 requires two years' service, and the claimant had less than two years' service. The judgment states the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.