Mr D Ladd v Resin Driveways Hub Ltd: 1400767/2019
JUDGMENT
The complaint that the Claimant was unfairly dismissed is struck out.REASONS
[2]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years’ service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.[3]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent for less than two years and therefore is not entitled to bring such a complaint.[4]The Claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. Accordingly, it is struck out.[5]The Claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment. Employment Judge Livesey Date: 22 March 2019 Judgment sent to parties: 25 March 2019 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case Number: 1400767/2019 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mr D Ladd v Resin Driveways Hub Ltd Heard at: Southampton On: 2 January 2020 Before: Employment Judge Rayner Appearances For the Claimant: No attendance For the Respondent: Mr K Eldridge (Director) Judgment on Reconsideration Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 rule 70[1]The Respondent is granted an extension of time to file its ET3.[2]The judgment of Employment Judge Midgley of 16 May 2019 is varied as to the amount of the unlawful deduction from wages.[3]The Respondent has made an unlawful deduction from the claimant’s wages and is ordered to pay him the net sum of £1442.36. Employment Judge Rayner Dated: 2 January 2020 Judgment sent to parties: 9 January 2020 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case Number: 1400767/2019 2 Note: online publication of judgments and reasons The ET is required to maintain a register of all judgments and written reasons. The register must be accessible to the public. It has recently been moved online. All judgments and reasons since February 2017 are now available at: https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions. The ET has no power to refuse to place a judgment or reasons on the online register, or to remove a judgment or reasons from the register once they have been placed there. If you consider that these documents should be anonymised in any way prior to publication, you will need to apply to the ET for an order to that effect under Rule 50 of the ET's Rules of Procedure. Such an application would need to be copied to all other parties for comment and it would be carefully scrutinised by a judge (where appropriate, with panel members) before deciding whether (and to what extent) anonymity should be granted to a party or a witness