Case 6010478/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Hodan Ibrahim v Hand in Hand Children Ltd RECONSIDERATION — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010478/2024
- Decision date
- 25 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Hodan Ibrahim
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's reconsideration application and refused it under rule 70(2) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judge referred back to the original judgment, which had treated the claimant's case as an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and had concluded that the tribunal had no power to deal with it because the claimant had less than two years' service.
The claimant later suggested that he had raised protected disclosure, discrimination and victimisation allegations, but the judge found that those matters had not been pleaded or raised before the original judgment was approved. The judgment also states that any such allegations would not affect the position on the unfair dismissal claim. The reconsideration application was therefore refused and the original decision stood.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reconsideration judgment refused to vary or revoke the original decision. It records that the only complaint was ordinary unfair dismissal and that the tribunal had no power to deal with it because the claimant had less than two years' service. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 70(2) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 98 of the 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.