Case 6027250/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Adrian Jennings v Manchester Breakdown Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6027250/2025
- Decision date
- 30 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Adrian Jennings
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAdrian Jennings' complaint of unfair dismissal against Manchester Breakdown Services Limited was struck out. The Tribunal found that he had been employed by the respondent for less than two years and therefore did not meet the qualifying-service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Despite being given an opportunity to do so, he had not provided an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
The breach of contract complaint was not determined and shall proceed to a hearing. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were unaffected and recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to bring the complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The complaint was not determined by this judgment and shall proceed to hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 two-year qualifying-service requirement
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.