Case 2415291/2021 · Employment Tribunal
S El-Fargali v Michael brown — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415291/2021
- Decision date
- 1 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S El-Fargali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than 2 years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that S El-Fargali had been employed by Michael Brown for less than 2 years.
Because the claimant did not satisfy the qualifying service requirement, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal. It also found that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It also stated that the claimant's other complaint was not affected by this judgment and would proceed to a hearing on 9 June 2022.
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 requires at least 2 years' service and found the claimant had less than 2 years' service. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.