Case 3310783/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ioan Pirlog v Barchester Healthcare Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310783/2023
- Decision date
- 3 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ioan Pirlog
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The reason given was that the claimant did not have the two years' continuity of service required by s.108(1) ERA 1996, and that claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also considered the claimant's claim of automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996, advanced on the basis that he had made a protected disclosure. That claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success.
No remedy was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to determine the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.94 ERA 1996 because the claimant did not have the two years' continuity of service required by s.108(1) ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim of automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 for having made a protected disclosure was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
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.