Case 2304977/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Khan v NHS Surrey Heartlands Clinical Commissioning Group — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304977/2020
- Decision date
- 11 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Khan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's complaint of constructive unfair dismissal. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr A Khan had been employed for less than two years.
Because the service requirement was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also found that he had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, for why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It expressly stated that the claimant's race discrimination complaint was not affected by this judgment. No monetary remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant said he was constructively unfairly dismissed. The tribunal struck out the complaint because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant had less than two years' service. The judgment also records that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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.