Case 3200369/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Saman v B&M and Haroon Store Manager Romford — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200369/2024
- Decision date
- 18 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Saman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 30 April 2024, the tribunal gave Mrs S Saman an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why her unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal identified section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, noting that a claimant is not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless they have been employed for two years or more, subject to exceptions which did not appear to apply.
Mrs S Saman did not make representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims were still listed for a preliminary hearing on 5 August 2024. No remedy was awarded in 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 after noting that section 108 ERA 1996 requires two years' qualifying service unless an exception applies, and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the 30 April 2024 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.