Case 3300051/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Carl Howton v Route One Group RECORD OF A HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300051/2024
- Decision date
- 25 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyes Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Carl Howton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Carl Howton brought a single unfair dismissal complaint arising from his dismissal for misconduct by Route One Group. The tribunal recorded that he had worked for the respondent as a warehouse operative from 10 April 2022 to 22 November 2023, following around two months' agency work before employment began, and that he had been suspended for two weeks after an alleged incident involving his line manager.
The tribunal had previously warned the claimant that his claim might be struck out because he did not appear to have the qualifying service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim unless an exception in section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 applied. After reviewing the paper file, the tribunal found that he had not been continuously employed for two years ending with the effective date of termination and that none of the statutory exceptions applied.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant had no right to bring an unfair dismissal claim and struck the claim out. No remedy was awarded because the claim did not proceed to determination on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim struck out because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and no exception to s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996 applied. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- two years' continuous employment
- effective date of termination
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.