Case 1400905/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Raza v Connectus Technology Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400905/2020
- Decision date
- 4 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Raza
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It found that Mr A Raza had been employed by Connectus Technology Ltd for less than two years, so he did not satisfy the statutory qualifying service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not give an acceptable reason.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, so no findings were made in this judgment about any other potential claims or remedies.
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 he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. He was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.