Case 2300477/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Monument v Emcor UK — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300477/2023
- Decision date
- 25 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Monument
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. It had written to the claimant on 20 April 2023 inviting representations or a hearing request on why the claim should not be struck out, because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or any exceptional circumstances giving an exemption.
The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claims remained listed for hearing on 04 September 2023 and were not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment states the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and had not shown exceptional circumstances providing an exemption. Remaining claims were not determined in this judgment and remained listed for hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.