Case 3201248/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Winskill v Smartpark and SMG Meet and Greet and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201248/2023
- Decision date
- 26 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr D Winskill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA hearing was listed on 26 October 2023 to clarify the unfair dismissal claim, but the claimant did not attend. The tribunal recorded that, on the claim form, the claimant's complaints about wages came after he was dismissed, and it said the unpaid wages claim would continue to a final hearing on 9 January 2024 at 12 noon.
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It stated that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1998 requires two years of continuous employment before an employee has the right to complain of unfair dismissal, and that the claimant did not meet that requirement because, on his own case, he was employed from 2 May 2023 to 7 May 2023. The claim was therefore struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
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 as having no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not attend the clarification hearing, and the tribunal noted that, on the claimant's own case, he was employed from 2 May 2023 to 7 May 2023 and did not have two years' continuous employment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1998
- struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success
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.