Case 6013360/2024 · Employment Tribunal
H Litt v MindWeaver Ltd/ IKIGAI TECH 2 LIMITED — 2024
- Case reference
- 6013360/2024
- Decision date
- 26 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
H Litt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the 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, so section 108 ERA 1996 did not permit an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.