Case 1402884/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Ahmed v JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402884/2019
- Decision date
- 9 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harper MBE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Ahmed
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that Mr N Ahmed had been employed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association for less than two years.
Because the claimant did not meet the qualifying service requirement, the tribunal found that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but had failed to give an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment, but it did not determine them in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claimant had been employed for less than two years and had not given an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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.