Case 6005460/2024 · Employment Tribunal
S Morris v OD Contractors Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6005460/2024
- Decision date
- 6 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Morris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 1 October 2024, the Tribunal invited the claimant to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The reason given was that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was not affected by this decision, and that the remaining claim stayed listed for hearing on 21 January 2025 with a time estimate of 3 hours.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason or request a hearing after being given the opportunity to do so. | 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.