Case 2601132/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A Bekkouche v Royal Mail Leicester — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601132/2024
- Decision date
- 8 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A Bekkouche
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr A Bekkouche's unfair dismissal complaint. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal noted that the claimant's reasons for saying the dismissal was unfair largely concerned procedural issues. It also found that he did not advance any argument that he had been dismissed for an automatically unfair reason, which would have removed the need for the qualifying period. On that basis, it held that there was no valid reason why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding 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 ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996; the tribunal also noted that no basis was advanced for an automatically unfair reason. | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.