Case 6009845/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Peers v Innovative Learning Technologies Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6009845/2024
- Decision date
- 10 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Peers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr T Peers brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Innovative Learning Technologies Limited. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. On that basis, it held that he was not entitled to bring a claim of unfair dismissal.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but he did not give an acceptable reason. The judgment therefore states that the unfair dismissal claim is struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant also failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the claim 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.