Case 2602061/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr U C Ezeogu v IBC Health Care — 2023
- Case reference
- 2602061/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr U C Ezeogu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr U C Ezeogu brought complaints of unfair dismissal and race discrimination against IBC Health Care. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint unless an exception applied.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. He was given an opportunity to explain why the unfair dismissal claim could still proceed, but the explanation did not engage any of the statutory exceptions. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to determine it.
The judgment expressly stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the strike-out decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the tribunal found the claimant had less than two years' service and the explanation provided did not engage any exception to the two-year rule under s.108 ERA 1996. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.