Case 2305134/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C H Au-Yeung v Kim’s Service Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2305134/2021
- Decision date
- 24 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Bryant QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C H Au-Yeung
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the Claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years’ qualifying service and found that the Claimant had been employed by the Respondent for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the Claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the Claimant had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal stated that the Claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
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 had been employed for less than two years and therefore could not meet the service requirement under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite having the opportunity to do so, 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.