Case 1401110/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Joseph Melia v Hextransforma Healthcare Limited (in Administration) — 2017
- Case reference
- 1401110/2021
- Decision date
- 2 November 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Joseph Melia
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and that Mr Joseph Melia had been employed by Hextransforma Healthcare Limited for less than two years.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he failed to give an acceptable reason. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, and that the breach of contract claim would proceed to a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.