Case 3314416/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. S McGowan v Everyman Media Group plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 3314416/2022
- Decision date
- 3 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. S McGowan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr S McGowan's unfair dismissal claim against Everyman Media Group Plc. It had written to the claimant on 21 February 2023 giving him an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The reason identified was that, under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a claimant is not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless they have two years' service or fall within a stated exception, and the Tribunal said those exceptions did not appear to apply.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal found that he lacked sufficient qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim and therefore struck the claim out. The hearing listed for 9 May 2023 was vacated and did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not appear to have two years' qualifying service under section 108 ERA 1996 and did not make sufficient representations against strike out after the Tribunal's letter of 21 February 2023. | 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.