Case 3311340/2023 · Employment Tribunal
B Ngassa v Hoffmann-La Roche AG — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311340/2023
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
B Ngassa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out B Ngassa's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed by Hoffmann-La Roche AG for less than two years.
The tribunal further found that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not given an acceptable reason. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, and that the claim of dismissal as an act of discrimination under the Equality Act proceeds.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment says the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.