Case 2214983/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Watfa v United Colleges Group — 2024
- Case reference
- 2214983/2023
- Decision date
- 10 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin Appearances
- Venue
- in public
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Watfa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Watfa brought complaints against United Colleges Group. The hearing took place in public by CVP, with the claimant joining by telephone, before Employment Judge Adkin on 3 September 2024. The tribunal gave oral reasons at the hearing and noted that written reasons were to follow separately.
The unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant did not have sufficient jurisdiction under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No remedy was awarded in relation to that complaint.
The disability discrimination complaint was struck out because the tribunal concluded that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing, applying rule 37(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunal Rules. The judgment does not record any monetary award or any split of compensation between the claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant did not have sufficient jurisdiction under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out on the basis that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing under rule 37(1)(e) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37(1)(e) Employment Tribunal (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.