Case 1802081/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v T33 Holdings Ltd and Bahadir Telli — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802081/2023
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required not less than two years' service to bring such a claim, and found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
Because the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and did not give an acceptable reason despite being given the opportunity to do so, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal said section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claimant had been employed for less than two years and gave no acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.