Case 3304298/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr K Takacs v Verogen Ltd — 2023

Case reference: 3304298/2023
Decision date: 17 August 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Anstis Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr K Takacs

Respondent

Verogen Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr K Takacs, brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Verogen Ltd. The tribunal noted that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.

Because the claimant did not satisfy the qualifying service requirement, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. 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 held that the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.