Case 1405577/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Sarkodie v Hepburn Bio Care — 2024
- Case reference
- 1405577/2023
- Decision date
- 4 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Sarkodie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Sarkodie, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Hepburn Bio Care. By letter dated 7 November 2023, the tribunal told the claimant that the complaint appeared to be barred by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claim form indicated that he had been employed for less than two years and none of the stated exceptions appeared to apply.
The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the complaint should not be struck out. It found that he failed to make representations, or failed to make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant's remaining claim would be listed for a hearing in due course, but no further determination of that claim is contained in 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 after giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing. It considered that section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 did not appear to permit the claim because the claim form indicated less than two years' service, and the claimant did not make sufficient representations in response. | 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.