Case 6001348/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Mathews v Bristol Disability Equality Forum — 2023
- Case reference
- 6001348/2023
- Decision date
- 13 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Mathews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Mathews brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Bristol Disability Equality Forum. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required the claimant to have at least two years' service before bringing an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that he had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory service requirement was not met, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.
The tribunal stated that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It also recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.