Case 3302676/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Redman-Henry v Central Bedfordshire Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302676/2023
- Decision date
- 3 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Redman-Henry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe only complaint addressed in the judgment was unfair dismissal. Employment Judge Tynan recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr K Redman-Henry had been employed by Central Bedfordshire Council for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also found that, despite being given an opportunity to do so, he had not provided an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary award was made in respect of the unfair dismissal complaint.
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 ERA 1996 requires at least two years' service and the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.