Case 3302763/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. D Coffils v Flights Of Fantasy Creative Play Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302763/2023
- Decision date
- 17 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. D Coffils
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr D Coffils’s unfair dismissal complaint. By letter dated 17 May 2023, it had given him an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal recorded that, under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, claimants are not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless they have been employed for two years or more, except in certain specific circumstances which the tribunal said did not seem to apply in this case. It found that the claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing.
On that basis, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The reasons state that the claimant’s remaining claims remain, but no determination of those claims is recorded in 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 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. It referred to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and noted that the claimant did not appear to satisfy the two-year employment requirement or any stated exception. The reasons say the claimant failed to make written representations, to make sufficient representations, or to request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.