Case 1805220/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Hussain v Inside Access Limited (sued as Vanessa Laithwaite) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1805220/2019
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Hussain
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr E Hussain's unfair dismissal complaint. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service to bring such a complaint, and that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. On that basis, he was not entitled to pursue the unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment also records that the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but gave no reason. The tribunal stated that the claimant's claims for arrears of pay and holiday pay were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant gave no reason, despite being given the opportunity, 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.