Case 6008721/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Holley v Turbine Surface Technologies Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008721/2025
- Decision date
- 9 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Holley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal complaint under sections 94 and 98 ERA.
The tribunal found that Mr A Holley had been employed by Turbine Surface Technologies Limited for less than two years. On that basis, it held that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint.
It also recorded that the claimant had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but failed to give an acceptable reason. The complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal pursuant to sections 94 and 98 ERA was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 ERA 1996 prevented an unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98 ERA. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 94 and 98 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.