Case 1401355/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Ucuzcu v Engleburn Care Home — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401355/2022
- Decision date
- 6 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Ucuzcu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 4 May 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the unfair dismissal complaint should be struck out for lack of continuity of service. The tribunal noted that under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 a claimant is generally not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless employed for two years or more, subject to specific exceptions that did not appear to apply here.
The judgment records that it appeared from the claim form that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal held that it could not consider the unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. The judgment states that this did not affect the other complaints in the claim form, but it makes no further determination on them in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the tribunal considered the claimant lacked the two years' continuity of service required by s.108 ERA 1996, and no exception appeared to apply. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.