Case 2603412/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Barratt v SRP Hire Solutions Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603412/2019
- Decision date
- 27 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Barratt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It recorded that Mr Barratt had been employed by SRP Hire Solutions Ltd for less than two years, and therefore did not meet the qualifying service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for bringing an unfair dismissal claim.
Because that statutory threshold was not met, the tribunal concluded that the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed. It also noted that the claimant had been given the chance to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.