Case 3305679/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Young v Carbon Rewind Ltd. PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305679/2024
- Decision date
- 13 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coll Appearances
- Venue
- Employment Tribunal at Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Young
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 17 April 2025 before Employment Judge Coll at Watford. The claimant did not attend, having indicated by telephone before the hearing that he did not wish to attend now or in the future. The tribunal also recorded that he had failed to complete the agenda for case management.
The tribunal considered the ET1 and the dates of service recorded in it, 26/03/2024 to 12/04/2024. It held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the requisite 2 years' length of service. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
The judgment notes, by way of background, that separate directions were issued in case the claimant did not mean to indicate that he would take no further part. Those directions required him to confirm by 16 May 2025 whether he wished to withdraw his other claims or continue with them. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the tribunal found the claimant did not have the requisite 2 years' length of service. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.