Case 4106296/2023 · Employment Tribunal
5 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No:4106296/2023 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh (in person) on February 2024 Mr K Poomchai v Tiwaporn Sutawan Reid — 2024
- Case reference
- 4106296/2023
- Decision date
- 1 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
5 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No:4106296/2023 Preliminary Hearing at Edinburgh (in person) on February 2024 Mr K Poomchai
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Edinburgh on 1 February 2024, Employment Judge Murphy held that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr K Poomchai’s unfair dismissal complaint because he had not met the two-year qualifying period of employment required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore dismissed.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant’s complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and breach of contract (notice) had not been dismissed at that stage and were to proceed in accordance with the case management order of the same date. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at preliminary hearing because the tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction: the claimant had not completed the two-year qualifying period of employment required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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.