Mr C Eagles v Samworths brothers. — 2025

Case reference: 6033655/2025
Decision date: 30 December 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Midgley Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr C Eagles

Respondent

Samworths brothers.

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr C Eagles, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Samworths brothers. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Eagles had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it concluded that he was not entitled to bring the proceedings.

The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but failed to provide an acceptable reason. The judgment therefore states that the claim is struck out. No remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal said the claimant complained of unfair dismissal, but was employed for less than two years so was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 ERA 1996. It also noted that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.