Case 3302984/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Amirzadah For the v Ms Pourtival (inhouse solicitor) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3302984/2021
- Decision date
- 11 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Amirzadah For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open hearing on 7 January 2022, the respondent applied to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint on the basis that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring such a claim. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been employed for four days, so the qualifying period was not met.
The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that the claimant said the dismissal was discriminatory, but said that this was not one of the reasons for dismissal to which the two-year qualifying period does not apply. The judgment states that the claimant was not entitled to bring that complaint and that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at an open hearing because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint and the claimant had four days' service. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.