Case 1601480/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Morgan v Nexperia Newport Limited — 2023

Case reference: 1601480/2023
Decision date: 25 October 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge S Jenkins Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Morgan

Respondent

Nexperia Newport Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal considered a complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Mr M Morgan against Nexperia Newport Limited. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.

On that basis, the tribunal decided that Mr Morgan was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also found that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service, found the claimant had less than two years' service, and struck out the complaint. 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

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.