Case 3201320/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr James Fairhead v Hovis Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201320/2019
- Decision date
- 15 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Elgot Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr James Fairhead
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Elgot gave a judgment on 4 October 2019 in Mr James Fairhead's case against Hovis Limited. The tribunal struck out and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because Mr Fairhead did not have two years' qualifying employment for the purposes of section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, and none of the statutory exceptions applied.
The tribunal also recorded that the remaining claims, described as disability and unauthorised deductions from wages, had been made within the relevant statutory time limits. It noted that the amended claims were made by email on 23 May 2019. This judgment did not determine the merits of those remaining claims, and it also corrected the respondent's name to Hovis Limited.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out and dismissed this claim because the claimant did not have the necessary two years' qualifying employment under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, and none of the exceptions applied. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the remaining disability claim had been made within the relevant statutory time limits. The judgment did not determine the merits of the claim. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the remaining claim for unauthorised deductions from wages had been made within the relevant statutory time limits. The judgment did not determine the merits of the claim. | Other | — | — |
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.