Case 6005232/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Davies v Lancashire County Cricket Club — 2024
- Case reference
- 6005232/2024
- Decision date
- 19 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. Employment Judge M Butler recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr C Davies had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant was also given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore states that the unfair dismissal complaint is struck out. The reasons note that the claimant's other complaints are not affected by this judgment, so no findings were made on those other complaints in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because section 108 ERA 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service; the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.