Case 6014981/2024 · Employment Tribunal
D H Colman v TenonFM — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014981/2024
- Decision date
- 6 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
D H Colman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 31 October 2024, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint and the redundancy payment complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal indicated that both complaints had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had worked for the respondent for less than two years continuously when employment ended, and that this meant the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear those claims under sections 108 and 155 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out both the unfair dismissal complaint and the complaint seeking a redundancy payment.
The judgment states that the remaining complaints of holiday pay, race, sex and age discrimination, breach of contract, and unpaid wages were unaffected by this decision and remained in the proceedings, with a preliminary hearing listed for 19 May 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the tribunal’s letter of 31/10/2024 because the claimant had worked for the respondent for less than two years continuously when employment ended, so the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction under sections 108 and 155 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not make written representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out for the same jurisdictional reason as the unfair dismissal complaint: the claimant had less than two years' continuous service when employment ended, and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- sections 108 and 155 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.