Case 2603111/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Miss M Pah v Mr Rob Sherwood — 2023

Case reference: 2603111/2022
Decision date: 6 February 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ahmed Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss M Pah

Respondent

Mr Rob Sherwood

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that Miss M Pah had been employed by Mr Rob Sherwood for less than two years.

Because the claimant did not have the required qualifying service, the tribunal held that she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that in her reply of 26 January 2023 she had failed to identify any exception to the two-year rule. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.

The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.

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, found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, and noted that her reply of 26 January 2023 did not identify any exception to the two-year rule.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.