Case 2401453/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Altaf v Applocum Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401453/2021
- Decision date
- 31 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Altaf
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Miss A Altaf’s unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to bring such a claim, and found that she had been employed by Applocum Limited for less than two years.
Because the claimant did not meet the qualifying service requirement, the tribunal found she was not entitled to pursue the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity, she did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, and her letter of 23 February 2021 did not identify the complaint as one exempt from the two-year qualifying service rule.
The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. It also found she had not given an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.