Case 3304656/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Beal v Mcmullens & Sons Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304656/2024
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Beal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required not less than two years' service for such a complaint, and that Mr S Beal had been employed by Mcmullens & Sons Ltd for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal also recorded that Mr Beal failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment. No monetary remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had less than two years' service. It also recorded that 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- 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.