Case 6002390/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Q Footitt v Connect and Save — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002390/2025
- Decision date
- 5 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bann
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Q Footitt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to pay a redundancy payment. It had previously written to the claimant on 5 February 2025 giving an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why those complaints should not be struck out.
The stated reason was that the statutory two-year qualifying periods for unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims did not seem to be met, and the Tribunal said no relevant specific exceptions seemed to apply. The judgment also stated that the claimant's remaining claims remained listed for hearing on 12 June 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out because the Tribunal stated the two-year qualifying period under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not seem to be met and no relevant exception seemed to apply. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The complaint was struck out because the Tribunal stated the two-year qualifying period under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 did not seem to be met and no relevant exception seemed to apply. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 155 of the 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.