Case 2600354/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Patel v Brookestreet Agency and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600354/2025
- Decision date
- 3 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A Patel
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant complained of unfair dismissal. It applied section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which requires not less than two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment expressly 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 unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to bring such a complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected, but does not identify or adjudicate them. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.