Case 6013675/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Roche v Convatec Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013675/2024
- Decision date
- 19 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Roche
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr M Roche's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless a specific exception applies, and that the claim form implied the claimant had less than two years' service.
Despite being given the opportunity, the claimant did not advance any argument that he had the necessary two years' service or that any exception applied. He also did not raise any other objection to strike out or respond to the warning about strike out. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, and that the preliminary hearing remained listed as previously notified.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 ERA 1996 requires at least two years' service unless an exception applies, and the claimant did not present any argument that he met the service requirement or any exception after being given the opportunity to do so. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 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.