Case 2405144/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Judson v Superbike Factory Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405144/2019
- Decision date
- 19 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Judson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr W Judson brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Superbike Factory Ltd. The tribunal recorded that section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It therefore held that he was not entitled to bring the complaint unless he could show an exemption under section 108(3) of the Act.
The claimant did not give an acceptable reason or show any exemption within section 108(3), despite being given the opportunity to do so. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and had not shown any exemption under section 108(3) ERA 1996, despite being given an opportunity to do so. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108(3) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.