Case 2414962/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Izaddoust v Alliance Medical Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414962/2019
- Decision date
- 6 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Izaddoust
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Alliance Medical Limited. Employment Judge Phil Allen held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also recorded that she had been given the opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not done so.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 ERA 1996 required two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, found the claimant had less than two years' service, and said she had not given an 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 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.