Case 2304737/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Badmus v Guys and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304737/2022
- Decision date
- 7 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Badmus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 24 January 2023, the tribunal considered whether the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint should be struck out. It recorded that the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that no exceptional circumstances were shown to provide an exemption to the qualifying service period.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had failed to make sufficient representations as to why the complaint should not be struck out or to request a hearing. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims continue, so no final determination was made on those claims in this decision.
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 no exceptional circumstances were identified to disapply the qualifying period. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not made sufficient representations against strike out or requested a hearing. | 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.