Case 2602012/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Hussain v MEG Derby Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2602012/2024
- Decision date
- 19 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swann Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr K Hussain brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against MEG Derby Limited. The tribunal identified section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as the relevant threshold provision and found that a claimant must have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that Mr Hussain had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it held that he was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also recorded that he had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The tribunal noted 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 held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 ERA 1996 prevented the unfair dismissal complaint. He did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.