Case 2600374/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. D Stevens v Charles Kendall Group — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600374/2024
- Decision date
- 26 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. D Stevens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint only. It 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 Mr D Stevens had been employed by Charles Kendall Group for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also found that he had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, for why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment, and that notice of hearing for the breach of contract wrongful dismissal complaint would be sent to the parties in due course.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because section 108 ERA 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, 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.