Case 2202611/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Sagar v The Welcome People Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2202611/2020
- Decision date
- 3 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Sagar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr H Sagar presented a claim form on 30 April 2020 complaining of unfair dismissal against The Welcome People Ltd. The tribunal recorded that he had been employed from 30 October 2019 to 28 April 2020, which was less than two years' continuous employment on the effective date of termination.
The tribunal applied section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that the claimant did not have the right to complain of unfair dismissal because he had not completed the qualifying period. It also recorded that there was nothing in the particulars of claim to indicate that section 108(3) applied, and the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 3 March 2021 to explain why the claim should be allowed to proceed.
On that basis, the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It further stated that it did not have jurisdiction to consider any of the other complaints made by the claimant, but the judgment does not identify any separate causes of action beyond unfair dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the claimant had been employed from 30 October 2019 to 28 April 2020, so he did not meet the two-year continuous service requirement in section 108(1) ERA 1996. The judgment says there was nothing in the particulars to indicate that section 108(3) applied. The tribunal also said it did not have jurisdiction to consider any other complaints made by the claimant, but no separate claim types were identified in the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108(1) ERA 1996
- s.108(3) ERA 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.