Case 6011376/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Williamson v Orsted — 2024
- Case reference
- 6011376/2024
- Decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Williamson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Williamson brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Orsted. Employment Judge Tobin held that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so the statutory qualifying period in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not met for an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment records that there was no response to the tribunal's letter of 3 October 2024 and that the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite having the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The reasons also note that the claimant had ticked the box for whistleblowing, but there was nothing in the details of complaint indicating a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal that could be responded to meaningfully by the respondent. No monetary remedy was awarded.
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 could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant did not respond to the tribunal's letter of 3 October 2024 and gave no acceptable reason why the claim should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- strike out
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.