Mr D Woolley v ALD Facades Limited — 2025

Case reference: 6013227/2024
Decision date: 15 February 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge V Butler Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Woolley

Respondent

ALD Facades Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The tribunal said section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr D Woolley had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. It also stated that the claimant was not employed by the respondent.

The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been given the opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had failed to do so. It therefore ordered that the complaint of unfair dismissal be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.

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 section 108 ERA 1996 requires at least two years' service, the claimant had less than two years' service, and the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The reasons section also states that the claimant was not employed by the respondent.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.