Case 3321684/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hicklin v Scansource — 2019
- Case reference
- 3321684/2019
- Decision date
- 10 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hicklin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr D Hicklin's unfair dismissal complaint under rule 37. In a letter dated 9 October 2019, the tribunal gave him the opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should be struck out because he did not have the necessary two years' service and no exception to that requirement appeared to apply.
Mr Hicklin did not make written representations and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims would continue to a hearing, but it records no substantive findings on those claims in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the tribunal wrote on 9 October 2019 inviting representations or a hearing on whether the claim should be struck out because the claimant did not have the required two years' service and no exception appeared to apply. The claimant did not respond in writing or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- two years' service requirement
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.