Case 3201290/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Czajkowski v Pioneer Trading Co Essex Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201290/2023
- Decision date
- 23 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Czajkowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 15 August 2023, the Tribunal gave Mr T Czajkowski an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why his unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out. The stated reason was that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 generally prevents an unfair dismissal complaint unless the claimant has at least two years' employment, subject to specified exceptions that did not appear to apply.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment records no monetary award and no further substantive findings on dismissal fairness.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim after giving the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 15 August 2023 to make representations or request a hearing. It recorded that, under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, claimants are generally not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless they have two years' service or fall within a specific exception, which did not appear to apply. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.