Case 1603087/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Moreton v South Wales Fire and Rescue Service HQ — 2024
- Case reference
- 1603087/2023
- Decision date
- 21 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Moreton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Moreton brought a claim of unfair dismissal against South Wales Fire and Rescue Service HQ. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required not less than two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than that qualifying period.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that Mr Moreton was not entitled to bring the proceedings. It also recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had failed to do so.
The judgment therefore ordered that the claim be struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded or assessed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. The extracted text contains an OCR error at paragraph 3, reading 'less than year years'; the tribunal's reasoning is that the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring the claim. | 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.