Case 3200644/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mr E Fadehan v Total Resources — 2020

Case reference: 3200644/2020
Decision date: 21 September 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
Venue: East London

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr E Fadehan

Respondent

Total Resources

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At East London Employment Tribunal on 21 September 2020, Employment Judge Burgher recorded that Mr E Fadehan did not have two years' continuous employment. On that basis, his ordinary unfair dismissal claim could not proceed and was dismissed.

The judgment also dealt with a separate unfair dismissal claim brought under section 101A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, said to be based on the Working Time Regulations. That claim was struck out because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospects of success. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that Mr E Fadehan did not have two years' continuous employment and therefore could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal struck out the section 101A Employment Rights Act 1996 unfair dismissal claim, described as based on the Working Time Regulations, because it had no reasonable prospects of success.	Struck out	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.