Case 2402688/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Forsyth v Ladbrokes Coral — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402688/2022
- Decision date
- 1 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Forsyth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Forsyth brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Ladbrokes Coral Group. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that Mr Forsyth had been employed by the respondent for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, he had not provided an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint was accordingly struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaint was not affected by this judgment and would proceed to a hearing on 19 October 2022. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant had less than two years' service. The judgment states that another complaint was not affected and would proceed separately, but it was not adjudicated in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the 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.