Case 2403395/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A M Rizvi v Julie Batterton — 2024
- Case reference
- 2403395/2024
- Decision date
- 17 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A M Rizvi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 24 June 2024, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations, or request a hearing, on why the unfair dismissal complaint and redundancy payment claim should not be struck out. The tribunal recorded that it appeared from the claim that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, and that if so the tribunal could not consider the unfair dismissal complaint.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out both the complaint of unfair dismissal and the claim for a redundancy payment. The judgment does not record any monetary award.
The tribunal noted that the remaining claim or claims remained listed for a preliminary hearing on 4 November 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations, or request a hearing, following the tribunal's letter dated 24 June 2024. The tribunal noted it appeared the claimant may have been employed for less than two years. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out for the same reason as the unfair dismissal complaint after the claimant did not make representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
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.