Case 3307762/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Miss S Rahman v Hawkeye Security Support Services Ltd and 2 others — 2024

Case reference: 3307762/2023
Decision date: 15 April 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge R Lewis Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

4 named

Claimant

Miss S Rahman

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Miss S Rahman's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that she was not entitled to bring the complaint.

The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. It therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out despite being given the opportunity to do so.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.