Case 3303558/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Intasean v Mountain Warehouse — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303558/2024
- Decision date
- 24 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Intasean
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Intasean, brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal against Mountain Warehouse. The tribunal noted that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint unless a statutory exception applies, and that the claim form implied the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The claimant was given a warning of possible strike out on 12 July 2024 and asked to respond by 26 July 2024, but no response was received. The tribunal recorded that he did not present any argument that he had the required service, did not identify any applicable exception, and did not raise any other objection to strike out. It therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint, and because that was the only complaint, the entire claim was struck out.
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 two years' qualifying service unless an exception applies, and the claimant did not respond to the warning or advance any basis for meeting that requirement. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.