Case 3301608/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S P Bunten v Darby Nursery Stock Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301608/2023
- Decision date
- 3 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S P Bunten
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that Mr Bunten had been employed by Darby Nursery Stock Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he had been given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not done so.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
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 s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.