Case 2600935/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Aldridge v Malvern Tyres (Wholesale) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600935/2022
- Decision date
- 11 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Aldridge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr R Aldridge, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Malvern Tyres (Wholesale) Limited. The tribunal recorded that the claim was brought under sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It therefore concluded that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal proceedings.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the unlawful deduction from wages claim was 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 claim because section 108 ERA 1996 required at least two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The judgment states that the unlawful deduction from wages claim was not affected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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.