Case 1800837/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Saeed v Body Ease Ltd. — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800837/2019
- Decision date
- 11 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Y Saeed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Y Saeed brought claims against Body Ease Ltd for unfair dismissal and for failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal. The hearing took place at Leeds on 11 October 2019 before Employment Judge Shepherd, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by Ms Hashmi.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment with the respondent at the effective date of termination. On that basis, it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear either the unfair dismissal claim or the claim relating to a written statement of reasons for dismissal.
The judgment records that, in those circumstances, the claims were not well-founded and were dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment with the respondent at the effective date of termination, so it did not have jurisdiction to hear this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim for failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal. The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction because the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment at the effective date of termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.