Case 6009383/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Po Man Chan v Kingdom Contracting Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6009383/2025
- Decision date
- 5 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Po Man Chan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and entitlement to a redundancy payment against Kingdom Contracting Services Limited. The tribunal recorded that both complaints require at least two years' employment under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaints should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason, so the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims were struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the redundancy payment claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 155 of the 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.