Case 2303363/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Akhmedov v Cellcrypt Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303363/2022
- Decision date
- 7 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Akhmedov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal only. By a letter dated 07 November 2022, it invited representations or a request for a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because the claimant did not appear to have the qualifying two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and no exceptional circumstances were identified to exempt that requirement.
The claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It noted that a notice of hearing would be provided in due course for the claimant's remaining claims.
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 after a letter dated 07 November 2022 gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing. The tribunal said the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and no exceptional circumstances were identified to disapply that requirement. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.