B Evans v The Vaping Group Limited — 2025

Case reference: 6018938/2024
Decision date: 28 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Benson

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

B Evans

Respondent

The Vaping Group Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, B Evans, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against The Vaping Group Limited. Employment Judge Benson recorded that the complaint was struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant had been employed for less than two years.

The judgment states that the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore concluded that the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed and struck it out. The judgment also 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 held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 ERA 1996 prevented an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given an opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.	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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.