Mr M Judd v Mayo Civils — 2024

Case reference: 2401331/2024
Decision date: 8 July 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge McDonald

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Judd

Respondent

Mayo Civils

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

By letters dated 13 March 2024, the Tribunal gave Mr M Judd an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why his complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment should not be struck out. The stated reason was that he had insufficient service with Mayo Civils to bring those complaints, so the Tribunal considered it had no jurisdiction to hear them.

Mr Judd did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out both complaints. The judgment does not record any monetary award or any substantive determination on the merits of dismissal or redundancy entitlement.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out because the Tribunal considered the claimant had insufficient service to bring the claim, so it lacked jurisdiction to hear it.	Struck out	—	—
Redundancy	Struck out for the same reason: the Tribunal considered the claimant had insufficient service to bring a redundancy payment claim, so it lacked jurisdiction to hear it.	Struck out	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.