Case 1301732/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Kalaiarasan v Salisbury Poultry Midland Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301732/2022
- Decision date
- 2 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Kalaiarasan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Mr R Kalaiarasan against Salisbury Poultry Midland Limited. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' continuous service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had been given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but had failed to provide an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It further stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 ERA 1996 meant he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. He was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- strike out
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.