Case 1807364/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Fordham v Bang Tidy Clothing Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1807364/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Fordham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint only and struck it out. It recorded that, by letter dated 19 December 2020, the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for want of jurisdiction, the stated basis being that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, it struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claim(s) remained listed for hearing on 20 February 2020. No monetary remedy was awarded in this strike-out judgment.
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 under rule 37 after giving the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 19 December 2020 to make representations or request a hearing. The stated reason was that the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The extracted text also says the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing. The letter date appears inconsistent with the decision date in the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.