Case 2500741/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jamsheedh Moolechalil Parikochu v Middlesbrough DP Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500741/2024
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McGregor By
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jamsheedh Moolechalil Parikochu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant, Mr Jamsheedh Moolechalil Parikochu, issued a claim in the Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 9 April 2024 against Middlesbrough DP Limited. The hearing took place on 15 August 2024 before Employment Judge McGregor by CVP. The Claimant did not attend and did not actively pursue the claim; the Respondent appeared and was represented by Miss Laura Tarren. The Tribunal also amended the Respondent’s name to Middlesbrough DP Limited.
The Tribunal recorded that the Claimant had not provided dates of employment, but the dates supplied by the Respondent showed employment from 26 October 2023 to 19 January 2024. On that basis, the Tribunal found that the Claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore did not satisfy the qualifying period required to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Because the Claimant did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal said he had failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The Tribunal accordingly struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment was given orally at the hearing, with written reasons following in the record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment’s operative section states that the Claimant’s complaint of 'unlawful dismissal' is struck out, while the reasons identify the claim as unfair dismissal. The Tribunal found the Claimant had less than two years’ service and did not attend the hearing. | 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.