Case 6009786/2025 · Employment Tribunal
J H Tsikudo v Matrix APA (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6009786/2025
- Decision date
- 15 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J H Tsikudo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint under the Employment Rights Act 1996. It wrote to the claimant on 15 May 2025 explaining that section 108 ERA 1996 generally requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and that the claim appeared to show less than two years' service. The claimant was given until 29 May 2025 to explain why the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not respond and did not set out any basis for concluding that he had two years' service or otherwise fell within an exception. The tribunal therefore found that he had failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, and it struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal relied on section 108 ERA 1996 and noted that the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's letter or provide any basis for concluding that he had two years' service. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.108
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
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.