Case 2406394/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Moiz v 1st Med Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 2406394/2025
- Decision date
- 8 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Moiz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Moiz complained that 1st Med Ltd had unfairly dismissed him and that he was entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal found that he had worked for the respondent for less than two years. It applied the two-year service requirements in sections 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint or receive a statutory redundancy payment.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaints should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. The tribunal struck out both complaints. His other complaints were not affected by this judgment, and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than the two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than the two years' service required for a statutory redundancy payment by section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 two-year service requirement
- Section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996 two-year service requirement
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.