Case 6016921/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A Pringle v Advanced Comprehensive Engineering Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6016921/2025
- Decision date
- 11 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Pringle
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained of unfair dismissal. The Tribunal found that, whether using the employment dates in the claim form or the response, the claimant's continuous employment was less than two years, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant also complained of disability discrimination. The judgment records that the claimant had ticked the relevant box on the claim form but provided no further information, did not respond to the Tribunal's order for further particulars, an impact statement, and medical evidence, and had not set out grounds to which the respondent could respond. The Tribunal struck out both claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and did not give an acceptable reason why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination complaint was struck out after the claimant did not respond to an order for further information, an impact statement, and medical evidence; the judgment states that no grounds had been set out and the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.