Case 1801653/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Thompson v SAMY Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801653/2020
- Decision date
- 3 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that Mr M Thompson had been employed by Samy Ltd for less than two years.
Because the service requirement was not met, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity, the claimant gave no reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It states that the claimant's other complaint was not affected by this judgment, but it does not determine that complaint in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment also records that the Claimant gave no reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.