Case 6004282/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Giles v Department for Work and Pensions Heard in Manchester by video — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004282/2025
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Giles
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr J Giles brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against the Department for Work and Pensions. At a hearing in Manchester by video on 9 December 2025, Employment Judge Brain heard the case with the claimant in person and Mr M Harris for the respondent.
The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have the period of continuous employment required by section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The complaint was therefore struck out.
The decision records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's note on reasons.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have the period of continuous employment required by section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108(1) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.