Case 3201926/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stephen Woodcock v MGM Muthu Westcliff Hotel — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201926/2020
- Decision date
- 18 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stephen Woodcock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Stephen Woodcock, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against MGM Muthu Westcliff Hotel under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. By a Notice and Order dated 19 April 2021, the tribunal gave him an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out.
The tribunal said that, on the face of the ET1, the claimant did not appear to have two years' continuous service, which would be required to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that none of the exceptions to that section appeared to apply. The claimant did not respond in writing or request a hearing.
The claim was therefore struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the Part X ERA 1996 unfair dismissal claim after concluding that, on the face of the ET1, the claimant did not appear to have two years' continuous service under section 108 ERA 1996 and that none of the statutory exceptions appeared to apply. The claimant did not make written representations or request a hearing in response to the Notice and Order dated 19 April 2021. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.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.