Case 1300241/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Charlotte Gotts, Mr Evren Uygun, Karar Ali, Mr Saavan Padhiar, Mr Hussain Abass, Imtanaan Abass, Mr James Hart, Oba Waiyaki, Mr Hok Yin Stephen Chiu v University of Warwick — 2023
- Case reference
- 1300241/2023
- Decision date
- 25 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Findlay
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Charlotte Gotts, Mr Evren Uygun, Karar Ali, Mr Saavan Padhiar, Mr Hussain Abass, Imtanaan Abass, Mr James Hart, Oba Waiyaki, Mr Hok Yin Stephen Chiu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned unfair dismissal complaints brought by Ms Charlotte Gotts, Mr Evren Uygun, Karar Ali, Mr Saavan Padhiar, Mr Hussain Abass, Imtanaan Abass, Mr James Hart, Oba Waiyaki and Mr Hok Yin Stephen Chiu against the University of Warwick. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimants had been employed by the respondent for less than two years and therefore were not entitled to bring unfair dismissal complaints. It also recorded that the claimants had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why those complaints should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaints were struck out; the judgment stated that the other complaints brought by the claimants were not affected. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaints were struck out because the claimants had less than two years' service and were not entitled to bring such complaints under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 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.