Case 6000713/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Ahmad v XMA Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000713/2023
- Decision date
- 7 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Ahmad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Z Ahmad brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against XMA Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' continuous service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, he 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 had failed to give an acceptable reason. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The claimant argued that the dismissal was for a discriminatory reason. The tribunal noted that, if that were so, it would be an act of discrimination to be assessed under the Equality Act 2010, but it would not itself make the dismissal automatically unfair. 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 complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The tribunal also noted that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The claimant said the dismissal was for a discriminatory reason, but the tribunal stated that this did not make the dismissal automatically unfair. | 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.