Case 6007022/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dean Bayliss v Jonic Engineering — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007022/2024
- Decision date
- 16 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dean Bayliss
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint only. It recorded that, subject to exceptions, section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Dean Bayliss had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but had failed to give an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given an opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- strike out for no jurisdiction / no entitlement to bring complaint
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.