Case 6007057/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Alan Chance v Philip's Wholesale Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6007057/2024
- Decision date
- 21 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Alan Chance
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaint of a right to a redundancy payment. In reasons dated 21 October 2024, Employment Judge Allen recorded that the claimant had been given until 6 September 2024 to make written representations, or request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out because it appeared from the claim that he had been employed for less than two years.
The judgment states that under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 employees do not have a right to a redundancy payment unless they have at least two years' service, subject to specific exceptions which did not appear to apply on the facts of this case. The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The remaining claim or claims were left listed for hearing on 2 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The Tribunal struck out the complaint of a right to a redundancy payment because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and did not make sufficient representations, or request a hearing, by the deadline set in the letter dated 23 August 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.155 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.