Case 2304173/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Mohamud Mohamed v National logistics — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304173/2022
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Mohamud Mohamed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 12 January 2023, the tribunal gave Mr A Mohamud Mohamed an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal and failure to pay a redundancy payment complaints should not be struck out. The reasons state that the tribunal considered the claimant's position on the requisite two years' service for bringing claims of this nature, although the extracted wording is awkward.
Mr Mohamed did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out both the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment complaints.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claim(s) stayed listed for hearing on 29 June 2023. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out this complaint after a 12 January 2023 letter gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing. The reasons refer to the claimant apparently not having the requisite two years' service; the extracted wording is awkward, so the precise phrasing is recorded cautiously. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out this complaint for the same reason as the unfair dismissal complaint: the claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing after the tribunal's 12 January 2023 letter. The reasons refer to the claimant apparently not having the requisite two years' service; the extracted wording is awkward, so the precise phrasing is recorded cautiously. | Struck out | — | — |
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.