Case 3323049/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Thompson v Two Fifty Four Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3323049/2021
- Decision date
- 24 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr P Thompson, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Two Fifty Four Limited. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also found that, despite being given the opportunity, the claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
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 two years' service, so he could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.