Case 1403187/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Marchi v Safeguard Construction Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1403187/2022
- Decision date
- 6 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Marchi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded a single complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Mr A Marchi against Safeguard Construction Ltd. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the qualifying service requirement was not met, the tribunal decided the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not done so. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out, and the tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out because section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and the tribunal found 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.