Case 6021728/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Granville Mills v Sprint Refrigeration & Catering Equipment Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6021728/2025
- Decision date
- 6 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Granville Mills
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe sole complaint before the tribunal was unfair dismissal. Employment Judge Fowell held that Mr Granville Mills did not have the necessary two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim, so the claim fell within Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 and was struck out.
The claimant had written to the tribunal after receiving notice that strike out was proposed. In that response he said he felt his dismissal was motivated by discrimination and intended to silence criticism, and he referred to the proposal in the Employment Rights Bill to remove the qualifying period. The tribunal noted that no discrimination claim had been brought, and said that even if one had been, it would not affect the unfair dismissal complaint. It held that the two-year rule continued to apply regardless of motive and regardless of future legislative proposals, and that it had no discretion to waive the requirement.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the sole complaint of unfair dismissal under Rule 37(1)(a) because the claimant did not have two years' service. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- two years' service qualifying period
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.