Case 6008911/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Afful v Ramsey Health Care UK Operations Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008911/2024
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Afful
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal also found that the procedural matters raised in the claimant's response to the strike out warning did not fall within any exception in section 108, and that allegations of discrimination or harassment under the Equality Act 2010 were not exceptions to that service requirement. It further held that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints, including any claim of discriminatory dismissal, were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 ERA 1996. The tribunal noted that allegations of discrimination or harassment were not exceptions under s.108. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.