Case 3314762/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Chin v Smiths Business Information Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3314762/2023
- Decision date
- 15 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Chin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr K Chin's unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed because he had been employed by Smiths Business Information Services Ltd for less than two years. It referred to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which requires not less than two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim, and found that requirement was not met.
The claimant had written to the tribunal on 18 March 2024 saying that the dismissal was linked to discrimination and would make it automatically unfair dismissal. The tribunal said that, even if the dismissal was discriminatory, that would not give a right to bring an unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996 in the absence of two years' service. The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out and that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the decision.
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 section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant's letter of 18 March 2024 said the dismissal was linked to discrimination, but the tribunal said that did not create a right to bring an unfair dismissal claim without two years' service. | 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.