Case 1303124/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Anthony Mullane v Sofology Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1303124/2018
- Decision date
- 8 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Anthony Mullane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Mr Mullane had been employed by Sofology Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that he failed to provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, for why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.