Case 2402102/2024 · Employment Tribunal
M Udoma v LJ Health and Wellbeing Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402102/2024
- Decision date
- 14 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Udoma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr Udoma’s complaint about a redundancy payment. It recorded that the claimant had been employed by LJ Health and Wellbeing for less than two years, and said that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years’ service to make the complaint. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to bring the redundancy pay complaint.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. It therefore ordered that the redundancy payment complaint be struck out.
The judgment stated that the claimant’s other complaint, of unauthorised deductions from wages, was not affected by this decision and would proceed to a hearing to be notified.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the redundancy payment complaint because the claimant had been employed for less than 2 years and did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.155 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.