Case 1805211/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Dr R Vanga v University of Hull — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805211/2020
- Decision date
- 6 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr R Vanga
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and found that Dr R Vanga had been employed by the University of Hull for less than two years.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, including by a letter dated 5 December 2020 filed in response to the order made on 11 November 2020. The tribunal recorded that the response repeated why the claimant believed the dismissal was unfair, but said that this did not answer the jurisdictional question before it. The tribunal also noted that the claimant was not pursuing any type of unfair dismissal claim for which two years' service is not required.
Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the judgment, including the complaint that the failure to extend his fixed-term contract was allegedly because of race discrimination.
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 did not advance any basis on which the statutory qualifying period did not apply. The tribunal noted that a separate race discrimination complaint about failure to extend a fixed-term contract could proceed and was not affected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.