Case 2207644/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. U. Uno v HCA International Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207644/2021
- Decision date
- 18 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge J Galbraith-Marten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. U. Uno
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant started work for HCA International Limited on 19 July 2021 as a Healthcare Assistant at the Princess Grace Hospital on a gross salary of £24,500 per annum. His employment ended on 9 September 2021 during a 13-week probationary period, after absences, lateness and communication issues were raised. The hearing on 15 July 2022 was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge J Galbraith-Marten sitting alone.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant had less than two years' service at dismissal on 9 September 2021. In the reasons it also said the complaint was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a). | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | This was the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal allegation based on the right to be accompanied at the dismissal meeting. The tribunal held that s.10 Employment Relations Act 1999 was not a relevant statutory right for s.104(4) ERA 1996 and struck out the complaint for no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal rejected the framing that the respondent's assertions about unreliability and lack of communication amounted to a contractual breach or that damages flowed from any such breach, so the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant was granted leave to amend to add a disability discrimination claim. The respondent's strike-out application and deposit application were refused, and the claim was left to proceed with case-management directions; there was no merits determination at this hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.104(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.3 Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Chandok v Tirkey
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- A nyanwu v South Bank Student Union
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias
- Cox v Adecco
- Van Rensburg v Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames
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.