Case 3203756/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Wispy v Eat Natural Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3203756/2022
- Decision date
- 28 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Wispy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint as a strike-out issue rather than determining the merits. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr R Wispy had been employed by Eat Natural Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal claim. It also noted that, although he referred in correspondence to possible exceptions for automatically unfair or discriminatory dismissal, he had brought no such claims and there was nothing in the claim form to suggest that any exception applied. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment stated that the breach of contract claim was not affected by the strike-out decision and would be determined at the final hearing on 7 December 2023. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
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 section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the claim should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.