Case 2402858/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Ahmad v Breathe Services Limited FAO Aadam Muhammad — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402858/2023
- Decision date
- 3 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Ahmad
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It applied section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which sets the general rule that an employee must have at least two years' continuous employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim. On the information in the claim form and the claimant's email of 3 March 2023, the tribunal found that none of the exceptions to that rule appeared to apply and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded 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 | Struck out under section 108 ERA 1996 because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and no exception appeared to apply; 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.