Case 1305794/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Kumar v Broadway Kitchens And Bedroom (midlands) Limited and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 1305794/2018
- Decision date
- 3 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Monk Signed
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Kumar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, and applied section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought.
Because that qualifying period was not met, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not given an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out, and the judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected.
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. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.