Case 2405980/2022 · Employment Tribunal

F Arian v David Shaw and 1 other — 2023

Case reference: 2405980/2022
Decision date: 6 September 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Batten Date

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

3 named

Claimant

F Arian

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It relied on section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and held that the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why that claim should not be struck out, but the tribunal found that no acceptable reason had been given.

The claimant also pursued race discrimination complaints. The tribunal described that complaint as comprising an allegation of harassment and allegations of detriment for the purposes of direct discrimination. It found that, apart from the dismissal allegation, the claimant had not explained how the detriment allegations were because of race and had not shown even the possibility of a causal link. For that reason, the allegations of race discrimination that were not subject to the deposit order were struck out.

This judgment does not record any monetary award. It also does not finally dispose of the dismissal-related race discrimination allegation, which the tribunal treated separately from the allegations it struck out.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so s.108 ERA 1996 prevented an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why it should not be struck out.	Struck out	—	—
Race discrimination	The race discrimination complaint was said to comprise an allegation of harassment and allegations of detriment for the purposes of direct discrimination. The tribunal said that, save in respect of the dismissal allegation, the claimant had not shown how the detriment allegations were because of race or even the possibility of a causal link, so the allegations not subject to the deposit order were struck out. The dismissal-related allegation was not disposed of in this judgment.	Other	Race	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.