Case 2405146/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Latham, Mr M Latham v Mint Commercial & Healthcare Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2405146/2019
- Decision date
- 12 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Latham, Mr M Latham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claimants' unfair dismissal complaints against Mint Commercial & Healthcare Ltd. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that both claimants had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimants were not entitled to bring unfair dismissal complaints. It also recorded that they had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaints should not be struck out, but had failed to give an acceptable reason. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaints.
The judgment states that the claimants' other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment says the claimants' unfair dismissal complaints were struck out because each had less than two years' service under section 108 ERA 1996. It also states the claimants failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaints should not be struck out. The judgment records that the claimants' other complaints were not affected. | 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.