Case 2601646/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Ali v Kuehne + Nagle Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601646/2021
- Decision date
- 22 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Ali
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s complaint of unfair dismissal. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years’ service to bring such a complaint, and found that Mr H Ali had been employed for less than two years.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out and responded by email dated 30 August 2021. The tribunal said those reasons might raise issues about whether the dismissal was discriminatory, but they did not provide an acceptable reason for allowing the unfair dismissal complaint to proceed.
Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The tribunal 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 tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and no exception to the minimum qualifying service requirement was made out. The reasons the claimant provided by email dated 30 August 2021 were considered but were not accepted as a basis to avoid strike out. | 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.