Case 6021041/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L D Mononyane v Cloud Imperium Games — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021041/2024
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L D Mononyane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr L D Mononyane's claim against Cloud Imperium Games. In a letter dated 17 December 2025, the tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because he did not have 2 years' continuous service and, under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint.
On 23 January 2025, Judge Dunlop gave the claimant a further opportunity to explain whether he had also brought a breach of contract claim and, if not, why the claim should not be struck out in its entirety. The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim and recorded that the hearing fixed for 22 April 2025 would not take place. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant did not have 2 years' continuous service and the tribunal said it had no jurisdiction under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment also refers to a possible breach of contract claim, but it does not record any separate determination of that claim. The extracted text states a letter dated 17 December 2025, which appears inconsistent with the decision date and is recorded as extracted. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.