Case 2603259/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Bishop v David Sandham Trading Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2603259/2023
- Decision date
- 30 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Bishop
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against David Sandham Trading Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and found that Mr Bishop had been employed for less than two years.
Because that statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed. It also recorded that the claimant had been given opportunities on 18 December 2023 and 9 March 2024 to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. He was given opportunities on 18 December 2023 and 9 March 2024 to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but gave no acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.