Case 2602834/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. S Parry v Her Majesty’s Prison Service Foston Hall — 2021
- Case reference
- 2602834/2021
- Decision date
- 14 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. S Parry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr S Parry, brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal against Her Majesty’s Prison Service Foston Hall. Employment Judge Heap recorded that 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, so he was not entitled to bring the proceedings.
The judgment also records that the claimant was given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not do so. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.