Case 6001737/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Mansare v Hoxton Hotel Operator Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001737/2025
- Decision date
- 22 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Mansare
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr N Mansare's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The tribunal said the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. It therefore ordered that complaint struck out. The judgment also states that the claimant's separate complaint that his dismissal was discrimination because of religion or belief was not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The tribunal also recorded that he did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.