In person For the v Respondent — 2021

Case reference: 1402576/2020
Decision date: 17 February 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Employment Tribunal at Plymouth, sitting in chambers on 11 February 2021 before Employment Judge N J Roper, dealt with the claimant's unfair dismissal claim against the Ministry of Defence. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.

The tribunal found that Mr Niaz Chowdhury had insufficient continuity of service to qualify for the right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

The judgment states that this dismissal did not affect the claimant's remaining claims, which were addressed in a case management order of the same date. No financial award was made in 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 insufficient continuity of service to qualify for the right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.