Case 2408710/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Songo v Evans Textile Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408710/2023
- Decision date
- 8 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Songo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It found that Mr A Songo had been employed by Evans Textile Ltd for less than two years, and therefore did not satisfy the service requirement for bringing an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. The tribunal accordingly struck out the unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment states that the claimant's other claims were not affected by this decision and would proceed separately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.