Case 2601516/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. N Steadman v Sunnier Skies — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601516/2024
- Decision date
- 7 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. N Steadman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr N Steadman, brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Sunnier Skies. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal noted that the reasons the claimant advanced for saying the dismissal was unfair largely concerned personal issues or matters such as defamation, which were outside the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal. It also found that he did not advance any argument that he had been dismissed for an automatically unfair reason for which no minimum qualifying period is required.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown any valid reason why the complaint should not be struck out or that the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider it. The judgment therefore struck out the claim. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant had less than two years' service. The tribunal found he did not advance any argument that his dismissal was for an automatically unfair reason and said the matters relied on largely related to personal issues or defamation, which were outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. | 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.