Case 6021311/2025 · Employment Tribunal
E Hussain v Netsparker Holdings Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021311/2025
- Decision date
- 15 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E Hussain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had warned the claimant on 15 September 2025 that it was considering striking out the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The stated basis was that the claim appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had not worked continuously for at least two years at the date of dismissal, contrary to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant replied and did not dispute that section 108 applied to the unfair dismissal complaint. Employment Judge Johnson was satisfied that the grounds for strike-out applied and that strike-out was consistent with the overriding objective in Rule 3, so the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The judgment states that the remaining complaints of disability discrimination and victimisation will continue and can be discussed at a preliminary hearing case management hearing on 11 May 2026.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the Tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success, as the claimant had not worked continuously for at least two years at the date of dismissal. The judgment states that disability discrimination and victimisation complaints will continue and does not determine those complaints. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.