Case 2409408/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr M Khan v The Bank of New York Mellon — 2023

Case reference: 2409408/2022
Decision date: 28 July 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Holmes Date

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr M Khan

Respondent

The Bank of New York Mellon

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant, Mr M Khan, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against The Bank of New York Mellon. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required the claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that he had been employed for less than two years.

Because the qualifying service requirement was not met, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also found that he had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service and found the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.	Struck out	—	—

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.