Case 1301551/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Dhillon v Continuity Health Care Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301551/2022
- Decision date
- 8 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Dhillon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Dhillon brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Continuity Health Care Services Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Dhillon had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it found that he was not entitled to bring the proceedings.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been given the opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had failed to do so. The judgment therefore states that the claim is struck out. Employment Judge Britton signed the judgment on 8 July 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had less than two years' service. It also recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.