Case 6009387/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Mansfield v Swissport GB Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009387/2024
- Decision date
- 17 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davidson Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Mansfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 17 September 2025, the tribunal struck out the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The judgment recorded three alternative bases for strike out: no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 38(1)(a), non-compliance with tribunal orders under Rule 38(1)(c), and failure actively to pursue the claims under Rule 38(1)(d).
On unfair dismissal, the tribunal found the claimant did not have the two years' continuous employment required for protection under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. His employment started on 1 September 2022 and ended on 24 May 2024, so the tribunal found there was no reasonable prospect of establishing jurisdiction over that claim.
On breach of contract, the tribunal found the pleaded claim was not one that could be brought in the employment tribunal because it was not a claim for damages for breach or for recovery of a sum within section 3(2) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had failed to provide a schedule of loss, disclose documents, exchange witness statements, engage with the respondent in preparation for the hearing, and attend the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) for no reasonable prospect of success; alternatively under Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders; and alternatively under Rule 38(1)(d) because the claim had not been actively pursued. The tribunal found the claimant lacked two years' continuous service under s.108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) for no reasonable prospect of success; alternatively under Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders; and alternatively under Rule 38(1)(d) because the claim had not been actively pursued. The tribunal found the pleaded claim was not a type of breach of contract claim within tribunal jurisdiction under s.3(2) Employment Tribunals Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d)
- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.3(2) Employment Tribunals 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.