Case 2402940/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Woodroffe v Service Graphics Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402940/2023
- Decision date
- 26 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Bromige Representation
- Venue
- Manchester ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Woodroffe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mr M Woodroffe's case against Service Graphics Limited at Manchester on 17 May 2023 before Employment Judge J Bromige. The claimant was represented in person and the respondent by a solicitor. The tribunal first granted the claimant's application to amend the ET1 so that his start date was corrected to 1 August 2021.
Having corrected the start date, the tribunal found that the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service for the purposes of s.108(1) ERA 1996. As a result, his claim for ordinary unfair dismissal under ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996 was dismissed.
The judgment records that the claimant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 remained live. No liability finding or remedy was recorded in this decision, and the written note states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and would not be provided in writing unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal granted the claimant's application to amend the ET1 to correct his start date to 1 August 2021. On that basis, he did not have two years' qualifying service under s.108(1) ERA 1996, so the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996 was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108(1) ERA 1996
- ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 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.