Case 2602736/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Thomson v East Lindsey ITeC Ltd trading as First College — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602736/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Welch Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Thomson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Mr K Thomson had been employed for less than two years.
Because the claimant did not satisfy the statutory qualifying period, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that he had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It further stated 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 held that section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service. The claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment says the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.