Case 6002566/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Appleton v Vision Vehicles Solutions Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002566/2024
- Decision date
- 11 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Appleton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr J Appleton had been employed by Vision Vehicles Solutions Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal found that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It further recorded that the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It expressly stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
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 the claimant had been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. It also states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment. | 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.
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.