Case 2213471/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Southcombe v Emerald Yachting Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2213471/2023
- Decision date
- 13 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Southcombe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's complaint that he had been unfairly dismissed. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Southcombe had been employed by Emerald Yachting Ltd for less than two years.
Because the qualifying period was not met, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he had been given the opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was given.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this 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 because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring 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 did not give an acceptable reason. | 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.