Case 6017889/2024 · Employment Tribunal
B Rathore v Community Health Partnerships Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017889/2024
- Decision date
- 8 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
B Rathore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least 2 years' service to pursue an unfair dismissal claim, and found that B Rathore had been employed by Community Health Partnerships Limited for less than 2 years.
Because the service requirement was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to pursue unfair dismissal. It also recorded that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out for lack of jurisdiction, but did not give an acceptable reason.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment and would proceed to hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least 2 years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, found that the claimant had been employed for less than 2 years, and struck out the complaint for lack of jurisdiction after the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason to avoid strike out. | 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.