Case 1400486/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Ford v Redish Motorsport Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400486/2022
- Decision date
- 19 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Ford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with an unfair dismissal complaint by Mr E Ford against Redish Motorsport Ltd. In a letter dated 25 March 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should be struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. On that basis, it concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The judgment therefore states that the claim is struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded or assessed in the judgment.
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 the claimant had been employed for less than two years and so was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- two years' service requirement
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.