Case 6012225/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Harris v Moneda Capital plc — 2026
- Case reference
- 6012225/2025
- Decision date
- 27 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It had warned the claimant that this part of the claim appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success because he did not have two years' continuous service.
The claimant responded that the basis of his complaint was constructive dismissal and that he had raised a whistleblowing case in April 2025. The Tribunal found that constructive dismissal did not avoid the two years' service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that section 103A did not assist because, on the claimant's own account, the alleged constructive dismissal occurred before the protected disclosure. The judgment states that the rest of the claim was not affected.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal only. It states that the rest of the claim was not affected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 overriding objective
- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.