Case 1301534/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Kadri v Synaptek Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301534/2022
- Decision date
- 26 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss A Kadri
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It found that Miss A Kadri had been employed by the respondent for less than two years, so she did not meet the qualifying service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for an unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not provide an acceptable reason. On that basis, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The judgment expressly states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
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 the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. The tribunal said the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment. | 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.