Case 1308665/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Matthew v Rock Compliance Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1308665/2023
- Decision date
- 24 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Matthew
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Matthew, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Rock Compliance Limited. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for the type of unfair dismissal complaint he appeared to be bringing, and found that he had been employed for less than two years.
Because the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint on that basis, the tribunal struck it out. It also recorded that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints, including any complaint that his dismissal was an act of discrimination, 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 held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service for the unfair dismissal complaint as presented, and found the claimant had worked for less than two years. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.