Case 3307701/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Theobald v Robin Ashby — 2023
- Case reference
- 3307701/2023
- Decision date
- 7 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Theobald
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr C Theobald, brought only a complaint of unfair dismissal against Robin Ashby. The tribunal wrote to him on 4 October 2023 and again on 31 October 2023 inviting representations and warning that the claim could be struck out if there was no reply, but no response was received.
The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so he was not entitled to pursue the claim. On that basis, and because he had not provided an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out and the entire claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant brought only an unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal gave opportunities to make representations by 18 October 2023 and again by 14 November 2023 after a letter dated 31 October 2023, but there was no reply. The claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 strike out
- section 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.