Case 6015304/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A El Khalaf v Southern Water — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015304/2025
- Decision date
- 27 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A El Khalaf
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr A El Khalaf's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that the claimant had been employed by Southern Water for less than two years.
By a letter dated 27 June 2025, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the complaint should not be struck out because he had less than two years' service and no exception appeared to apply. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, so the complaint was struck out.
The judgment records that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision and remained listed for a Telephone Case Management Hearing on 28 January 2026.
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 no exception to the two-year qualifying period appeared to apply. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.