Case 2602381/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. S Kandasamy v Barker Ross Nottingham — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602381/2022
- Decision date
- 15 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. S Kandasamy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that Mr S Kandasamy had been employed by Barker Ross Nottingham for less than two years, and therefore did not satisfy the service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for bringing an unfair dismissal claim.
The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but the tribunal found that he did not provide an acceptable reason. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
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 | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.