Case 6011105/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hollis v The Greengate Partnership LLP Bellvue Students UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6011105/2024
- Decision date
- 19 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hollis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr S Hollis, brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal against The Greengate Partnership LLP Bellvue Students UK Ltd. The tribunal identified section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as requiring two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint unless a specific exception applies.
The claim form implied that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. Although given the opportunity to do so, the claimant did not present any argument that an exception applied and did not raise any other objection to the complaint being struck out. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint, and because that was the only complaint, the entire claim was struck out.
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 claim form implied the claimant had less than two years' service and he did not identify any applicable exception under section 108 ERA 1996. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.