Case 2600808/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Brooks v Allocate Software Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600808/2020
- Decision date
- 22 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Brooks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ahmed, sitting alone, found that Mr D Brooks was an employee of 247 Time Limited since at least 1 November 2016 and that he had continuity of employment with that company before 28 February 2018. On that basis, the tribunal held that he had continuous service in excess of the two-year qualifying period required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain his complaint of unfair dismissal.
The judgment did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal complaint. By consent, the full merits hearing listed for 19 to 22 April 2021 was vacated and the proceedings were stayed for six months from the date of the order, or until further order, having regard to concurrent High Court proceedings between the parties. The claimant was directed to keep the tribunal updated on the progress of those proceedings.
No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant had continuous service in excess of the two-year qualifying period under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had jurisdiction to entertain the unfair dismissal complaint. The full merits hearing listed for 19-22 April 2021 was vacated and the proceedings were stayed by consent for six months pending concurrent High Court proceedings. | Other | — | — |
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.