Case 2413773/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Abbas v Manchester Evening News — 2019
- Case reference
- 2413773/2019
- Decision date
- 2 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Abbas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered two complaints: unfair dismissal and entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment. It found that Mr S Abbas had been employed by Manchester Evening News for less than two years. On that basis, section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented the unfair dismissal complaint, and section 155 of the same Act prevented a redundancy payment claim.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why either complaint should not be struck out. It therefore struck out both the unfair dismissal complaint and the complaint that he was entitled to be paid a statutory redundancy payment.
The judgment states that the claimant’s complaint of unlawful deduction from wages was not affected by this decision. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so he could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996, and it struck the complaint out after he gave no acceptable reason why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so he was not entitled to a statutory redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996, and it struck the complaint out after he gave no acceptable reason why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 155 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.