Case 3302739/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S T Muwanguzi v Care UK Community Partnerships Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302739/2024
- Decision date
- 13 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S T Muwanguzi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024. It found that, at the effective date of termination, the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore did not have the ordinary right not to be unfairly dismissed under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996, subject to the statutory qualifying period referred to in the reasons.
The claimant had previously been warned at a hearing on 17 December 2024 that he would need to show a good reason why the unfair dismissal complaint should continue despite the absence of two years' service. The tribunal found that he had not done so and concluded that the complaint had no reasonable prospects of success.
The judgment stated that the strike-out did not affect the claimant's Equality Act 2010 complaints that he was constructively dismissed and that this was unlawful discrimination. Those Equality Act complaints were not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out at a preliminary hearing because the claimant had less than two years' continuous employment and did not show a good reason why the complaint should continue. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38 Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.94 Employment Rights Act 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.