Case 1810817/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B J Asogu v Huddersfield Student Union — 2019
- Case reference
- 1810817/2018
- Decision date
- 7 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B J Asogu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The reason given was that the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and therefore did not have the right not to be unfairly dismissed under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant was not pursuing any unfair dismissal complaint that did not require two years' continuous service. It also noted, for the avoidance of doubt, that the claimant's other complaints in respect of alleged race discrimination would proceed and were not determined in this judgment.
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 it had no reasonable prospect of success. It was not in dispute that the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment, so he did not have the statutory right not to be unfairly dismissed under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 94
- no reasonable prospect of success
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
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.