Case 1403170/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Mossayebi, Claimant’s Husband For the v Mr A Dicken, Partner — 2021
- Case reference
- 1403170/2020
- Decision date
- 25 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Mossayebi, Claimant’s Husband For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Ms D Mossayebi had insufficient continuity of service to qualify to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's discrimination claim, which it described as discrimination on the grounds of marital status, and dismissed the claimant's claim for unlawful deduction from wages. The judgment states that these rulings did not affect the claimant's remaining claims, which were dealt with in a case management order of the same date.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had insufficient continuity of service to qualify under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Marriage or civil partnership discrimination | The judgment refers to this as discrimination on the grounds of marital status. | Dismissed | Marriage / civil partnership | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108(1) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.