M Harb v LTE Group and 3 others — 2025

Case reference: 6006858/2024
Decision date: 3 February 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Batten Date

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

5 named

Claimant

M Harb

Respondents

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. In the reasons, the tribunal recorded that the claim advanced was one of constructive unfair dismissal.

The tribunal found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to pursue that complaint, and that the claimant had been employed by the first respondent for less than two years. It also found that the claimant had not provided an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, as to why the complaint should not be struck out.

The judgment expressly stated 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 reasons state the claimant complained of constructive unfair dismissal, but the judgment records that the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service under s.108 ERA 1996.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.