Case 2302058/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S A Begum Khan v Pizza Hut (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302058/2023
- Decision date
- 11 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S A Begum Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 29 June 2023, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The stated reason was that the claimant did not appear to have the qualifying two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and there were no identified exceptional circumstances disapplying that service requirement.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge McLaren ordered that the complaint of unfair dismissal be struck out. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claims continued, and it does not record any remedy or monetary award for the struck-out complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding 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 the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or any exceptional circumstances exempting the service requirement, and because no sufficient representations were made in response to the tribunal's letter dated 29 June 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 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.