Case 6009274/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Orren Burlison v Blue Diamond UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009274/2025
- Decision date
- 12 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Orren Burlison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Orren Burlison's unfair dismissal complaint against Blue Diamond UK limited under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a). On 17 April 2025 the tribunal wrote to the claimant explaining that, on the information in the claim form, he appeared to have been employed for less than two years and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 unless a specific exception applied. The tribunal told him that, if that was so, the unfair dismissal complaint could not be considered and invited written reasons why it should not be struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the tribunal considered the claim had no reasonable prospect of success; the claimant had less than two years' service and did not identify any basis on which an unfair dismissal claim could be brought under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.