Case 2416787/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hafiz v Bodrul Ahmed — 2020
- Case reference
- 2416787/2019
- Decision date
- 6 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buzzard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hafiz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered complaints of unfair dismissal and a claim for a redundancy payment. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and section 155 of the same Act requires at least two years' service to have a right to a redundancy payment.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it held that he was not entitled to bring either complaint. It also noted that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why either complaint should not be struck out.
Accordingly, the complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment were struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996; no acceptable reason was given to prevent strike out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore had no entitlement to a redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996; no acceptable reason was given to prevent strike out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.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.