Case 6012113/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Young v Apple Retail UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012113/2024
- Decision date
- 12 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Young
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Young presented a claim for unfair dismissal on 18 September 2024, stating that he had been continuously employed by Apple Retail UK Ltd from 19 November 2022 until 11 June 2024. The respondent resisted the claim on the basis that the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the claimant had not met the two-year qualifying period for the right not to be unfairly dismissed under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
By letter dated 11 August 2025 the tribunal notified the claimant that it was considering striking the claim out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success, because it was bound to fail on jurisdictional grounds. The claimant did not provide any tenable ground for opposing strike-out.
On 10 September 2025, sitting in chambers, Employment Judge A M Snelson struck the claim out. The judgment records that this was just and consistent with the overriding objective. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim struck out under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because it had no reasonable prospect of success on jurisdictional grounds. The tribunal recorded the respondent's case that the claimant had been employed for less than the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal under Employment Rights Act 1996 ss.94 and 108(1). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- overriding objective
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.