Case 1801556/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Turner v Qasim — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801556/2022
- Decision date
- 4 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Turner
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal only. The tribunal noted that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and the claim form showed that Mr Turner had been employed for less than two years.
In response to the strike-out warning, Mr Turner referred to long-standing mental health issues and said he believed he had been dismissed to avoid dealing with the issues he had raised and making reasonable adjustments for disability. The tribunal said those matters would be relevant if he had brought a disability discrimination complaint, or complained that his dismissal was discriminatory, but he had not done so. It held that his disability and any failure to make reasonable adjustments did not disapply the two-year qualifying period.
The tribunal found that Mr Turner had not identified an acceptable reason why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out by judgment dated 3 May 2022, sent to the parties on 4 May 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claim form showed the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- two-year qualifying period
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.