Case 1600381/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. N. Bohana v Mr. M.A. Jones t/a M. Jones Scaffolding — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600381/2019
- Decision date
- 18 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. N. Bohana
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Mold before Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan on 18 October 2019, dealt with a dismissal dispute between Mr N. Bohana and Mr M.A. Jones t/a M. Jones Scaffolding. It found that the claimant was dismissed on 14 January 2019.
On the claim based on time off to care for a dependant, brought under sections 57A and 99 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the claimant was not dismissed for that reason. That complaint therefore failed.
On the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal held that the claimant had not completed two years' employment by the dismissal date and that no exception to the qualifying period applied. The claim for unfair dismissal therefore failed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Allegation under sections 57A and 99 Employment Rights Act 1996 that the claimant was dismissed for taking time off to care for a dependant. The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed for that reason. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed on 14 January 2019, but by that date he had not been employed for two years and no exception to the qualifying period applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 57A & 99 Employment Rights Act 1996
- two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal
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.