Case 2303118/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Jha v University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303118/2021
- Decision date
- 30 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Jha
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr B Jha's complaint of unfair dismissal against University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust. The judgment records that, by letter dated 19 July 2021, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaint should not be struck out.
The reason given was that the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and there were no exceptional circumstances recorded that would provide an exemption from the qualifying service period. The claimant failed to make sufficient representations against strike-out or to request a hearing, so the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims continue and records no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or any exceptional circumstances providing an exemption, and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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.