Case 6017393/2024 · Employment Tribunal
H Haider v PricewaterhouseCoopers — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017393/2024
- Decision date
- 6 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
H Haider
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with an unfair dismissal complaint brought by H Haider against PricewaterhouseCoopers. In a letter dated 7 November 2024, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing, because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 generally prevents an unfair dismissal complaint unless the claimant has two years' service or falls within an exception. The reasons record that the claimant's claim form appeared to show less than two years' employment and that no exception seemed to apply.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No compensation or other monetary remedy was awarded, and the judgment contains no separate findings on liability beyond the statutory eligibility issue.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant appeared to have less than two years' service and had not made sufficient representations or requested a hearing after being given an opportunity to do so. | 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.