Case 6004320/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Griffiths-Gripton v Funeral Services Limited t/a Co-op Funeral Services — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004320/2024
- Decision date
- 21 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Griffiths-Gripton
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal at this stage. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring such a complaint, and that Mr Griffiths-Gripton had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to pursue an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out for lack of jurisdiction, but had not given an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal noted separately that the claimant's disability discrimination complaint was not determined in this judgment and would proceed to a preliminary hearing listed for 17 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not have jurisdiction to pursue an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.