Case 1406057/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Omali v Howard Tenens Logistics Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406057/2020
- Decision date
- 20 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Omali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the Claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an unfair dismissal claim could be brought, and found that Mr E Omali had been employed by Howard Tenens Logistics Ltd for less than two years. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed.
The tribunal also noted that the Claimant's response did not indicate any reason why the two-year service requirement should not apply. The judgment states that the dismissal may still be argued to have been an act of discrimination, and that any such claim was not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Claimant had less than two years' service and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Claimant's response did not indicate any reason why the two-year qualifying period should not apply. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.