Case 3302377/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Brannigan v Scott James Saunders — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302377/2025
- Decision date
- 11 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Brannigan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr P Brannigan, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Scott James Saunders. Employment Judge Anstis Date recorded that the complaint was struck out. The tribunal found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment does not record any monetary remedy.
The tribunal expressly stated that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by 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 the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore did not satisfy the qualifying service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected. | 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.