Case 2600842/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Alistair Riggott v Chambers Building Maintenance Ltd AT A FULL HEARING BY CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600842/2021
- Decision date
- 13 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Blackwell Representation
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Alistair Riggott
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place remotely by CVP in Nottingham on 6 September 2021 before Employment Judge Blackwell. The claimant did not attend. The respondent attended through its director/accountant and director. The judgment records that the remote hearing was not objected to and that it was held remotely because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim because it did not have jurisdiction to hear it, citing section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record does not set out further factual findings on that claim beyond the jurisdictional dismissal.
The tribunal also struck out all other claims under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because they had not been actively pursued. The decision notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed pursuant to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment states that all other claims were struck out under Rule 37 because they had not been actively pursued; the written record does not identify those claims individually. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.