Case 3304163/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Gaballonie v MT Sheldon Ltd and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304163/2023
- Decision date
- 9 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr N Gaballonie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered complaints of unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring those complaints, and found that Mr N Gaballonie had been employed for less than two years.
Because the service requirement was not met, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to bring either complaint. It also recorded that he had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.