Case 3201425/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ahmed v London General Transport Services Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3201425/2018
- Decision date
- 29 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrowclough Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr R Blanco, Ms J Owen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996 because he had not been continuously employed by the Respondent for at least two years ending with the effective date of termination.
The Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. It also found that the Claimant acted unreasonably in pursuing that complaint after the preliminary hearing on 8 October 2018 and that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success.
On that basis, the Claimant was ordered to contribute £1,250 towards the Respondent's costs of defending the claim. No compensation or other remedy for the Claimant was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996 because the Claimant did not have two years' continuous employment. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 76(1)(a) and (b) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.