Case 1807613/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Rimoniene v Awaias Riaz — 2020
- Case reference
- 1807613/2019
- Decision date
- 24 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Rimoniene
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered Ms I Rimoniene's complaint of unfair dismissal against Awaias Riaz. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It records that the claimant's other complaint was not affected by this judgment, but it does not determine that other complaint in this decision.
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 claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 ERA 1996. The judgment also states that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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.