Case 2603442/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Lofthouse v Saint Gobain Building Distribution Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603442/2020
- Decision date
- 23 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Lofthouse
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained of unfair dismissal and sought a declaration for a redundancy payment. The tribunal recorded that both complaints required not less than two years' service under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. It concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring either complaint and noted that he had not given an acceptable reason, despite an opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out.
The complaints of unfair dismissal and for a redundancy payment were struck out. The judgment expressly stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment describes this as a declaration for a redundancy payment. It was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not qualify under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 155 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.