Case 2302388/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Houenou v Merit holdings — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302388/2021
- Decision date
- 21 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Houenou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 26 July 2021, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal said it appeared the claimant did not have the two-year qualifying period required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that there were no exceptional circumstances giving rise to a claim of automatically unfair dismissal.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment expressly records that the claimant's remaining claim remains and continues, but it does not determine that claim in this decision.
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 appear to have the two-year qualifying service required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing against strike out. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claim remains and continues. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 Employment Rights Act 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.