Case 3300338/2024 · Employment Tribunal
No appearance For the v Mr D Moher (solicitor) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300338/2024
- Decision date
- 3 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No appearance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury St Edmunds on 2 December 2024 before Employment Judge K J Palmer sitting alone. The Claimant, Mr Mohammed Akhtar, did not appear; the Respondent was represented by Mr D Moher, solicitor. The Tribunal dealt with the matter by oral judgment and recorded written reasons were not provided unless requested within 14 days.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. The reason given was that the Claimant had not been employed for the requisite period of time required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claim for notice pay or wrongful dismissal was also struck out. The Tribunal held that this claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction: the Claimant had not been employed for the requisite period under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The claim for notice pay or wrongful dismissal was struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.