Case 2402572/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Moran v NU Travel Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402572/2023
- Decision date
- 3 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Moran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy pay on a preliminary basis. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least 2 years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least 2 years' service for a redundancy payment complaint.
The tribunal found that Mr C Moran had been employed by NU Travel Limited for less than 2 years. On that basis, it held that he was not entitled to bring complaints of unfair dismissal or redundancy pay. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why those complaints should not be struck out.
Accordingly, the complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy pay were struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's separate breach of contract complaint was not affected by this judgment and would proceed to a hearing on 15 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than 2 years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the complaint; the tribunal also recorded that no acceptable reason was given why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than 2 years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring a redundancy payment complaint; the tribunal also recorded that no acceptable reason was given why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.