Case 3313316/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Raper v And First Choice (Kingston) Limited t/a Windowworkx — 2020
- Case reference
- 3313316/2019
- Decision date
- 26 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Vowles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Raper
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr G Raper, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against First Choice (Kingston) Limited t/a Windowworkx. Employment Judge Vowles held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It further recorded that he 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 complaints of unpaid notice pay, wages and holiday pay were not affected by this judgment. It also noted that the case remained listed for hearing on 26 March 2020 with a reduced allocation of 3 hours.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than 2 years' service, so section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. He did not give an acceptable reason, despite having the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.