Case 2601666/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Midgley v Planning Solutions — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601666/2023
- Decision date
- 14 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Midgley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Midgley, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Planning Solutions. By an order made on 13 November 2023 and sent to the parties on 14 November 2023, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out.
The Tribunal identified three reasons why strike out was under consideration: that the claimant did not appear to have the two years' qualifying service required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, that he appeared not to have actively pursued the claim, and that he had failed to comply with case management orders. The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
For that reason, the Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The hearing listed for 2, 3 and 4 June 2025 was cancelled. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal struck out the claim after giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations against strike out. It relied on three stated grounds: lack of the two-year qualifying service under section 108 ERA 1996, apparent failure actively to pursue the claim, and failure to comply with case management orders. | 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.