Case 2602456/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr D Martin v Roundleaf Ltd — 2019

Case reference: 2602456/2018
Decision date: 19 February 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge P Britton

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr D Martin

Respondent

Roundleaf Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

By letter dated 29 January 2019, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on whether the unfair dismissal complaint should be struck out because the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The claimant replied in writing, saying that the facts pleaded would amount to a public interest disclosure under s43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that the dismissal would therefore be contrary to s103A.

The tribunal accepted that, if the claimant's account was correct, the unfair dismissal claim was capable of being brought without two years' qualifying service. The judgment therefore states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not struck out. It also records that both the unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims remained listed initially for a telephone case management preliminary hearing on 5 April 2019.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal refused to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint. It noted the claimant's written representations that, if correct, the pleaded facts would amount to a protected disclosure under s43B Employment Rights Act 1996 and that dismissal would be contrary to s103A; the claim was therefore allowed to proceed.	Other	—	—
Race discrimination	The judgment records that the race discrimination claim remained listed for an initial telephone case management preliminary hearing. No substantive determination of the discrimination claim was made in this strike-out judgment.	Other	Race	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.