Case 3308997/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Nazir v Taichi tec — 2022
- Case reference
- 3308997/2022
- Decision date
- 25 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Nazir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Nazir brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Taichi tec. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to pursue an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Nazir had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring the proceedings. It also recorded that he failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore disposed of the case by striking out the unfair dismissal claim. No compensation or other monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The claim was therefore struck out after he failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.