Case 1802228/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Pope v Redtronic Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 1802228/2018
- Decision date
- 23 February 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Pope
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal against Redtronic Limited. It found that he had been employed for less than two years, so he did not meet the qualifying service requirement for an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not provide an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. The hearing listed for 31 May 2018 was reduced to one hour.
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 because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 ERA 1996. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.