Case 2600774/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Atkin v Icon Aerospace Technology Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2600774/2019
- Decision date
- 22 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Atkin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal claim in this judgment. It recorded that the claimant, Mr N Atkin, complained of unfair dismissal against Icon Aerospace Technology Limited.
The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, subject to limited exceptions. It found that Mr Atkin had been employed for less than two years.
Mr Atkin was invited to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but the explanation provided did not show an acceptable reason engaging one of the statutory exceptions. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment states that the claimant's other claims were unaffected by this decision, so no determination was made here on any separate claims outside unfair dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and the explanation provided did not engage any exception to the qualifying period under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.