Case 6002714/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. B Bell v Watson and Fine Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002714/2023
- Decision date
- 30 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. B Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint only. It found that Mr B Bell had been employed by Watson and Fine Ltd for less than two years, and recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
Because the claimant did not meet that qualifying service requirement, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also noted that, despite being given the opportunity, the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
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 section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. 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- s.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.