Case 6005782/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Oyibo v Amber Labs Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005782/2024
- Decision date
- 24 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Oyibo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Oyibo brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Amber Labs Limited. The tribunal recorded that he had been employed for less than two years and therefore did not meet the ordinary qualifying service requirement for an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal said the statutory exceptions to that qualifying period did not appear to apply on the material before it. It also found 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 complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment stated that any other complaints, if they existed, were not affected by this decision and were not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It found that section 108 ERA 1996 required two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint unless a specified exception applied, and said those exceptions did not appear to apply. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite having 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.