Case 6012583/2025 · Employment Tribunal
N Wickett v G Horton Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012583/2025
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
N Wickett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to bring such a complaint.
The tribunal found that N Wickett had been employed by G Horton Limited for less than two years. On that basis, it held that the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claimant had less than two years' service and failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaint 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.