Case 2603265/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. G Shields v Pat Cook and Sons Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2603265/2023
- Decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. G Shields
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint only. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that Mr Shields had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
Because the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint, and did not give any reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out, the remaining unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The reasons also record that the claimant's other complaints had already been rejected by Employment Judge Hutchinson on 8 January 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 ERA 1996. The claimant did not provide a reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The reasons also note that the claimant's other complaints had already been rejected by EJ Hutchinson on 8 January 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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.