Case 2600844/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J Berry v Salus Care Group Leicestershire Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600844/2021
- Decision date
- 10 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swann Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J Berry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and found that Mr J Berry had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to pursue the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It expressly stated 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 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service, and the claimant had less than two years' service. 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 of the 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.