Case 3304673/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Wells v And Mellwood Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3304673/2018
- Decision date
- 22 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Wells
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr O Wells, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Mellwood Limited. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to bring the complaint.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had 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 other complaint of unpaid wages was not affected by the judgment. The case remained listed for hearing on 22 January 2019 with a reduced allocation of one hour.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 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.