Case 1406441/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr MA Bruggemann v PJ South Coast Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1406441/2019
- Decision date
- 4 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr MA Bruggemann
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr MA Bruggemann, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against PJ South Coast Limited. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim.
It found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so he was not entitled to bring the complaint. The tribunal also noted that he failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out, and the judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.