Case 6016313/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Waters v Aviva Investors — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016313/2025
- Decision date
- 17 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Waters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr J Waters had been employed by Aviva Investors for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that Mr Waters was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he was given the opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not do so. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints are not affected by this decision, but it does not identify those complaints or make findings on them.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claimant had less than two years' service and, after being given the opportunity to do so, had not given an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints are not affected, but it does not identify them. | 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.