Case 3301812/2014 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Christmas v FM Conway & Aecom Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301812/2014
- Decision date
- 4 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Christmas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr P Christmas had been employed by FM Conway & Aecom Limited for less than two years when he was dismissed on 30 January 2023. On that basis, the tribunal held that the statutory right to bring an unfair dismissal claim did not apply and that there was no entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment.
The judgment states that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim under ss.94-98 ERA 1996 and redundancy payment claim under ss.163-164 ERA 1996 were struck out. The tribunal relied on the two-year continuous employment requirements in s.108(1) and s.155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider those claims, striking them out under Rule 37(1)(a).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment when dismissed on 30 January 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and therefore no statutory redundancy payment entitlement on the facts found. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108(1) ERA 1996
- s.155 ERA 1996
- Rule 37(1)(a)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.