Case 6017264/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Emiel Pinnock v First London cableway — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017264/2025
- Decision date
- 18 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Emiel Pinnock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained of unfair dismissal. The Tribunal stated that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 18 July 2025 giving him an opportunity to provide reasons why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The claimant did not reply within the deadline, requested an extension, and had still not explained why an exception to section 108 applied or given an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment states that the race discrimination complaint continues.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding 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' service and did not explain why an exception under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.