Case 2302428/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Adebowale Akinlade v Elite Basements and Underpinning Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302428/2021
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nike Balogun
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Adebowale Akinlade
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. By letter dated 20 July 2021, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why that claim should not be struck out because he did not appear to have the qualifying two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and there were no exceptional circumstances shown to exempt him from that service requirement.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claims continue, but it does not decide them in this document and it records no monetary award.
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, and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after being invited to do so by letter dated 20 July 2021. | 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.