Case 2206167/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Shabir v CBL Solutions Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2206167/2020
- Decision date
- 1 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wisby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Shabir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 3 December 2020, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The claimant had previously failed to make written representations on any complaint of automatic unfair dismissal, and the tribunal considered that it did not appear that he had two years' service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 25 February 2021 and no written representations were made. On the basis of the dates of employment in the ET1, which were confirmed by the respondent, the tribunal found that the claimant did not have the requisite two-year qualifying period of service under s 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring a claim of unfair dismissal.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining complaints remained listed for hearing on 27 May 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant did not have the requisite two-year qualifying period of service under s 108(1) ERA 1996. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment records that the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 25 February 2021 and made no written representations. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108(1) 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.
- 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.