Case 3315438/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms A Achaempong, Litigation Consultant — 2023
- Case reference
- 3315438/2022
- Decision date
- 1 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Ord Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal at Cambridge, heard by Employment Judge M Ord on 10 July 2023, considered the Claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal against the three Respondents. A strike out warning had already been issued on 17 January 2023 because, on the face of the Claim Form, the Claimant appeared to have been employed for less than two years.
The Claimant sent replies on 17 January 2023 and 9 May 2023 explaining why he thought the unfair dismissal claim should be allowed to proceed. The Tribunal held that those replies did not identify complaints which, if upheld, would amount to automatic unfair dismissal. The Tribunal described the complaints as concerns about lack of process and/or inappropriate consideration of the evidence in his position.
For that reason, the Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. No 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 unfair dismissal complaint because it had no jurisdiction: on the face of the Claim Form the Claimant had less than two years' service, and the points raised in his replies did not fall within any category of automatic unfair dismissal. | Struck out | — | — |
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.