Case 1805886/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M U Lone v SIG Trading Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1805886/2022
- Decision date
- 9 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M U Lone
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant, Mr M U Lone, complained of unfair dismissal against SIG Trading Limited and Anthony Harris. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal had sent a letter dated 19 January 2023 giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out. It found that he did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, and accordingly the unfair dismissal complaint was 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 struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 ERA 1996 requires at least two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant was given an opportunity by letter dated 19 January 2023 to make representations or request a hearing, but did not give an acceptable reason 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.
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.