Case 6000251/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Palmer v Taj Foods Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000251/2024
- Decision date
- 13 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Palmer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Mr C Palmer's section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 unfair dismissal complaint should be struck out. It found that he had been employed by Taj Foods Limited for less than two years, so he did not meet the service requirement in section 108 ERA 1996 for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment records that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not provide an acceptable reason. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment also states that the claimant's other complaints, including automatically unfair dismissal complaints, were not affected by this decision and would proceed to a hearing on 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 June 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.