Case 6001032/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Aisha Khatoon v ASTON BERRY Ltd (in voluntary liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001032/2025
- Decision date
- 24 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Aisha Khatoon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Aisha Khatoon brought complaints of unfair dismissal and a claim for a redundancy payment against ASTON BERRY LTD (in voluntary liquidation). The tribunal found that she had been employed for less than two years. It therefore held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented her from bringing an unfair dismissal complaint, and section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented entitlement to a redundancy payment.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given an opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out. It accordingly struck out the unfair dismissal complaint and the redundancy payment claim. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 ERA 1996 prevented an unfair dismissal complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 155 ERA 1996 prevented entitlement to a redundancy payment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.155 ERA 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.