Case 1400483/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A C Latini v AFC Bournemouth — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400483/2025
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A C Latini
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with a complaint of unfair dismissal. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Mr A C Latini had been employed by AFC Bournemouth for less than two years.
The tribunal considered the claimant's email of 7 April 2025 and the 'Other Information' section of the claim form, but concluded that the points raised did not place him within any of the statutory exceptions to the two-year qualifying period. It noted the claimant's personal circumstances, including his stroke, but said it had no general discretion to allow an unfair dismissal claim to proceed where the qualifying service requirement was not met.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the proceedings and struck out the claim. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had less than two years' service and the circumstances he relied on did not bring him within any statutory exception to the qualifying service requirement. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.