Case 6003946/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Eden v Sheet Piling UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6003946/2024
- Decision date
- 3 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Eden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr C Eden's claim against Sheet Piling UK Ltd. It recorded that he complained of unfair dismissal and a claim for arrears of pay. On the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal applied section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that Mr Eden had been employed for less than two years, so he was not entitled to bring unfair dismissal proceedings.
The tribunal also said Mr Eden did not appear entitled to bring a claim for arrears of pay because the arrears had already been paid, albeit late. It further found that, despite being given the opportunity, he failed to provide an acceptable reason why all the claims should not be struck out. The judgment therefore struck out the claim in full.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal applied section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a 'claim for arrears of pay' and says the claimant did not appear entitled to bring it because the arrears had already been paid, albeit late. | 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.
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.