Case 2406221/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Nyange v Novacoast Inc. — 2020
- Case reference
- 2406221/2020
- Decision date
- 10 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Nyange
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr C Nyange, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Novacoast Inc. The tribunal dealt with the matter on the papers and concluded that the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service in order to bring such a claim.
The tribunal found that Mr Nyange had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. On that basis, it held that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal also noted that he had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not provide an acceptable reason.
Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment. No monetary remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant had been employed for less than two years and did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.