Case 6027220/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ian Peters v Commercial Services Group — 2024
- Case reference
- 6027220/2025
- Decision date
- 1 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ian Peters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal after employment from 1 December 2024 until 6 May 2025. The tribunal had warned the claimant on 19 November 2025 that it was considering striking out the claim because it appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant replied on 25 November 2025 and acknowledged that he had less than two years' continuous service and had been paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. Employment Judge Lumby was satisfied that Rule 38 applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3, because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider unfair dismissal and the wrongful dismissal claim would produce no damages.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had around six months' continuous service and no applicable exception to the two-year qualifying period was identified. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal struck out the wrongful dismissal claim because the claimant had been paid one month's salary in lieu of notice, so any wrongful dismissal claim would result in no damages being awarded. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 overriding objective
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.