Case 6041990/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Stuart Wood v Midland Building Products Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6041990/2025
- Decision date
- 16 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smart
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Stuart Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Stuart Wood complained of unfair dismissal by Midland Building Products Ltd. The tribunal found that he had been employed by the respondent for less than two years and therefore did not satisfy the service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that no exception to the two-year continuous-service prerequisite could reasonably be identified in the ET1. Mr Wood had also failed, despite being given an opportunity, to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The entire claim was accordingly struck out, and no remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out because Mr Wood had less than two years' service, no applicable exception could reasonably be identified in the ET1, and he did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 two-year service requirement
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.