Case 2401906/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Cooper v Noveayr Respiratory Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401906/2024
- Decision date
- 9 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Cooper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint only. Employment Judge KM Ross recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Mr Cooper had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had been given the opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not done so. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by that decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint 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- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.