Case 2414477/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Robinson v Rybrook Volvo Bolton — 2022
- Case reference
- 2414477/2021
- Decision date
- 23 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Porter Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Robinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote hearing on 9 August 2022 before Employment Judge Porter, the claimant was not in attendance and the respondent was represented by Mr D Phillips, solicitor. The tribunal refused the claimant's application for a postponement.
The tribunal then dealt with the pleaded dismissal claims. It held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that claim was dismissed. The tribunal also struck out the claim of automatically unfair dismissal because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties on 23 August 2022. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The automatically unfair dismissal claim was struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.