Case 3307579/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Villiers v Barton Jones Packaging Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307579/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shrimplin Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Villiers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place by Common Video Platform on 8 March 2024 before Employment Judge Shrimplin. The claimant, Mr Villiers, did not attend and was not represented. The respondent attended through Mrs Lacey. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had not attended the earlier preliminary hearing, had not responded to correspondence sent by email or post, and had not engaged with correspondence from the respondent.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' continuous service, and the ET1 did not show that the claimant met that requirement. That claim was therefore dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the remainder of the case under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules because the claims as set out in the ET1 were vague and unspecified, and it was not possible to proceed in the claimant's absence. The judgment noted that, if the claimant had a genuine reason for not attending, he could seek reconsideration under Rules 70 and 71, but any such application would need to set out precisely the basis of each claim and the full details relied on.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the ET1 did not show the required two years' continuous service under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment does not identify the remaining claim(s) individually. It says they were vague and unspecified and were dismissed under Rule 47 in the claimant's absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rules 70 and 71 Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.