Case 2304151/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Rafieu Alharazim v Southern Housing — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304151/2024
- Decision date
- 27 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Rafieu Alharazim
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal, including the constructive dismissal element, because he did not have the two years' service required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. A strike-out warning had been issued on 26 July 2024 and the claimant responded on 29 July 2024.
The claimant argued that his case fell within section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996 because he had asserted a statutory right. The tribunal held that he relied on asserting the right not to be discriminated against in an appeal after dismissal, and that this was not a relevant statutory right for section 104. The tribunal noted that the relevant rights in section 104(4) are rights conferred by the Employment Rights Act 1996, not rights under the Equality Act 2010.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claims would proceed to a hearing on 2 February 2026. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal, which includes constructive dismissal, was struck out because the claimant did not have two years' service under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal rejected the claimant's reliance on section 104 ERA 1996 because the asserted right not to be discriminated against was raised after dismissal and is not a relevant statutory right for that provision. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 104(4) 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.