Case 2402522/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Lightbody v CWT Commodities Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402522/2023
- Decision date
- 31 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Lightbody
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 20 February 2023, the Tribunal invited Mr F Lightbody to make representations or request a hearing on why his unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The Tribunal noted section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, namely that a claimant is not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless they have two years' service or an applicable exception, which did not seem to apply on the material before it.
Mr Lightbody did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment also recorded that the wrongful dismissal claim and any claim for failure to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing would proceed to final hearing. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 20 February 2023 to make representations or request a hearing. The Tribunal said section 108 ERA 1996 meant he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless he had two years' service or fell within an exception, which did not seem to apply. The claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.