Case 3312210/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hussain v Volkerrail Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312210/2020
- Decision date
- 23 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Hussain brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Volkerrail Limited. 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 Mr Hussain had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to bring the proceedings. It also recorded that he had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not given an acceptable reason. The judgment therefore states that the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant complained of unfair dismissal, but the tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service. It found that Mr Hussain had been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal proceedings. He was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason, so the claim was 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.