Case 6022705/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Sen v Health Tech Services Group Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6022705/2025
- Decision date
- 15 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Sen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained of unfair dismissal and also claimed a redundancy payment. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and section 155 of the same Act requires two years' employment for entitlement to a redundancy payment.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. It also recorded that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint and redundancy payment claim were struck out; other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to bring the complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The redundancy payment claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to a redundancy payment under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 155 of the 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.