Case 3301656/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M E Lane v Sofwave Medical UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301656/2025
- Decision date
- 27 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M E Lane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M E Lane, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Sofwave Medical UK Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required not less than two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but the tribunal found that no acceptable reason had been given. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Quill Date on 21 August 2025 and sent to the parties on 27 August 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not provide an 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.