Case 2602691/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W J Hope v Airplus Renewables Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2602691/2023
- Decision date
- 2 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W J Hope
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr W J Hope brought a single claim of unfair dismissal against Airplus Renewables Ltd. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint unless an exception applies, and found that the claim did not show the claimant had been employed for two years or more.
The tribunal wrote to the claimant on 4 January 2024 warning that the claim would be struck out for lack of jurisdiction unless he made written representations explaining why that should not happen. The claimant did not respond. The tribunal therefore concluded that he had not given an acceptable reason for the complaint to proceed and struck out the unfair dismissal claim. As that was the only claim presented, the case ended.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant presented a single unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal struck it out because the claim did not show two years' qualifying service and the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's 4 January 2024 warning letter. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.