Case 6001627/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D C J Murphy v Spectrum Dynamics — 2024
- Case reference
- 6001627/2024
- Decision date
- 17 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D C J Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint only. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that Mr Murphy had been employed by Spectrum Dynamics for less than two years.
Because the qualifying service requirement was not met, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It expressly stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment, so no decision was made on those matters in this document.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. 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- 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.