Case 2305524/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Ruksana Begum v Sodexo Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305524/2023
- Decision date
- 22 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Ruksana Begum
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Ruksana Begum brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Sodexo Limited. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years’ service before an unfair dismissal claim can proceed, subject to exceptions that did not appear to arise in this case.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It also recorded that the claimant had been written to before the hearing to ask whether there was any reason the claim should be allowed to proceed notwithstanding the short service requirement.
At the preliminary hearing on 22 July 2024, the claimant accepted that there was no such reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 ERA 1996 required two years' service and found the claimant had been employed for less than two years. After the claimant accepted at the preliminary hearing that no exception applied, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.