Case 3201658/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Mainprize v Excellerate Services UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201658/2020
- Decision date
- 3 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Mainprize
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr K Mainprize, brought complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to pay redundancy payment against Excellerate Services UK Limited. The tribunal recorded that he had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented the unfair dismissal complaint and section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented any claim to redundancy payment. The judgment states that the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The tribunal therefore struck out the whole claim. The judgment was issued by Regional Employment Judge Taylor on 3 September 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings 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. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the redundancy payment complaint on the same basis: the claimant had less than two years' service and so had no right to redundancy payment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.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.