Case 2204072/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss EV Ngo Nouck Hioba v Deloitte LLP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204072/2022
- Decision date
- 30 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss EV Ngo Nouck Hioba
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and unpaid statutory redundancy payment. It recorded that the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to bring those complaints.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not have two years' employment with the respondent. It therefore held that she was not entitled to bring those claims.
The judgment also states that the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out. On that basis, the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment complaints were struck out, and the claimant's other complaints were expressly left unaffected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have two years' employment with the respondent and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the complaint for a statutory redundancy payment because the claimant did not have two years' employment with the respondent and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Rights Act 1996 two years' service requirement
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.