Case 3200803/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Richard Hopkins v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200803/2023
- Decision date
- 21 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Misra KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. Richard Hopkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 19 May 2023, the tribunal gave Mr. Hopkins an opportunity to explain why his unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out. The tribunal said the ET1 indicated that he had less than two years' continuous service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, with no applicable exceptions appearing to apply.
Mr. Hopkins did not make any written representations by the 2 June 2023 deadline, did not request a hearing, and did not do so at all. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim. The judgment also recorded that the hearing listed for 14 September 2023 would proceed in respect of the claimant's other claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the tribunal concluded the ET1 showed less than two years' continuous service and no applicable exception to the qualifying period under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not make representations or request a hearing by 2 June 2023 or at all. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.