Case 2406521/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A White v Safwan Baig Group Limited (in Liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 2406521/2019
- Decision date
- 22 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sherratt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A White
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A White brought a complaint of failure to pay a redundancy payment against Safwan Baig Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation). Employment Judge Sherratt recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service before a claimant can bring such a complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it held that he was not entitled to bring the redundancy payment complaint.
The judgment also records that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of failure to pay a redundancy payment was therefore struck out.
The tribunal stated 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The complaint of failure to pay a redundancy payment was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The judgment states that the claimant gave no 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.