Case 2601081/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Kirby v Merlin Leisure Pools Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601081/2019
- Decision date
- 9 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Kirby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr K Kirby, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Merlin Leisure Pools Limited. Employment Judge Britton recorded that the claim was considered as a strike-out issue because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The judgment also records that he was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not give an acceptable reason.
The only complaint adjudicated in this judgment was the unfair dismissal claim, which was struck out. The tribunal noted 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 the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.