Case 2303828/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Heath v Ebbsfleet United Football Club Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303828/2022
- Decision date
- 12 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Heath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 19 December 2022, the tribunal gave Mr A Heath an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why his claim should not be struck out. The tribunal identified the issue as whether he had the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or any exceptional circumstances that would exempt him from the qualifying service requirement.
Mr Heath did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim. The hearing listed for 27 June 2023 was cancelled as a result.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and no exceptional circumstances or sufficient representations were made in response to the tribunal's letter dated 19 December 2022. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.