Case 1403900/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Passmore v Bodycombe Logistics Ltd — 2019

Case reference: 1403900/2019
Decision date: 31 December 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Roper Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Passmore

Respondent

Bodycombe Logistics Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr D Passmore, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Bodycombe Logistics Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.

On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.

The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this 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 therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also noted that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.