Case 6013762/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Moghaddasi Esfevashi v Orthene Chemicals Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013762/2024
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Moghaddasi Esfevashi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service before a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Moghaddasi Esfevashi had been employed by Orthene Chemicals Ltd for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to pursue the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out, and the tribunal noted that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring such a complaint under s.108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.