Case 1303964/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Porada v Flow Control Engineering Solutions Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1303964/2018
- Decision date
- 2 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Porada
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service and found that Mr D Porada had been employed by Flow Control Engineering Solutions Ltd for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he had been given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not do so. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out by Employment Judge Broughton on 2 January 2019.
The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | 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.