Case 3201462/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Hilton v Hodgson Automative LLP — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201462/2020
- Decision date
- 28 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Hilton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Hilton brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Hodgson Automative LLP. The tribunal found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the proceedings. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim. No compensation or other monetary remedy was awarded.
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 the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment also records that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.