Case 3306592/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Bacon v Greg Harrup and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3306592/2022
- Decision date
- 17 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr P Bacon
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr P Bacon, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Greg Harrup and Regan James. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought.
The tribunal found that Mr Bacon had been employed for less than two years, so he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. He was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not provide an acceptable reason.
For those reasons, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
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 the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring that complaint. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.