Case 1809168/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Rodi v Clean City Air Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1809168/2023
- Decision date
- 9 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Rodi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Rodi, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Clean City Air Limited. The Tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
On the information available, the Tribunal considered that the claimant had been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to pursue the claim. By letter dated 19 August 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the complaint should not be struck out.
The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite that opportunity, for why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out in the judgment dated 9 September 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out because the Tribunal considered that the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.