Case 2414565/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Khan v Conexus Recovery And Field Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2414565/2019
- Decision date
- 17 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Khan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant’s complaint that he was entitled to a redundancy payment. It recorded that the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years’ service to bring such a complaint, and found that Mr H Khan had been employed by Conexus Recovery And Field Services Limited for less than two years.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he failed to give any reason. It therefore struck out the redundancy payment complaint.
The judgment stated 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so he was not entitled to bring a redundancy payment complaint. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not do so. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Rights Act 1996 two years' 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.