Case 2402860/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr S O Odubiyi v AAO UK Services Limited — 2024

Case reference: 2402860/2024
Decision date: 11 June 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ross Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr S O Odubiyi

Respondent

AAO UK Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr S O Odubiyi, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against AAO UK Services Limited. Employment Judge Ross Date recorded that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so he did not have the qualifying service required to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal also noted that the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not give an acceptable reason. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.

The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary award was made in 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 less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 ERA 1996. The judgment says the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.