Case 3201117/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mohibbur Rahman v Department of Work and Pensions — 2026
- Case reference
- 3201117/2025
- Decision date
- 18 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mohibbur Rahman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 10 February 2026 warning that it was considering striking out the claim. The stated reason was that, applying section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it appeared that the claimant did not have the necessary 2 years of employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing to do so, but did not reply to that letter. Although he had replied to the respondent's strike-out application, the Tribunal recorded that he gave no reason showing there was power to hear his claim without the necessary qualifying service.
Employment Judge Moor was satisfied that the grounds for striking out under Rule 38 applied. The Tribunal found that, on the claimant's own case, he did not have 2 complete years of employment, did not have the right to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and the claim had no reasonable prospects of success. The claim was struck out and the hearing listed for 7 December 2026 was vacated. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was struck out under Rule 38 because the claimant did not have 2 complete years of employment and therefore did not have the right to bring the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 38
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.