Vishal and Others

Case Summary

The claimant's claim for unfair dismissal was struck out at preliminary case management hearing. Both parties agreed the claimant had only been employed for approximately 15 months (June 2023 to September 2024), falling short of the two-year continuous employment requirement under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospect of success as a matter of law and exercised its discretion to strike it out, while preserving the claimant's claims for race discrimination and detriment due to protected disclosure.

The claim for unfair dismissal was struck out because section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 operates as a statutory bar to the claim, as the claimant had not been continuously employed for two years ending with the effective date of termination (employed June 2023 to September 2024, approximately 15 months). The claim therefore had no reasonable prospect of success as a matter of law.

• •Whether claimant had two years' continuous employment required for unfair dismissal claim
• •Whether R1 and R2 were separate employers or part of R3
• •Application to strike out claim for lack of reasonable prospect of success

Case No. 6018483/2024 and 6012138/2025 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Evin Shaju Respondents: Vishal (R1), Fazul Enamum (R2) and RVB Transcendence Ltd (R3) Heard at: London South Employment Tribunal via CVP On: 09 April 2026 Case numbers: 6018483/2024 and 6012138/2025 Before: Employment Judge M Da Costa sitting alone ATTENDANCE AND REPRESENTATION Claimant: In person, unrepresented Respondent: In person, represented by Mr Francis Appiah-Danquah JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is as follows: Complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 1. The case was listed today for its preliminary case management hearing. 2. There was an application today by the respondent pursuant to rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to strike out the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal. 3. Both parties agreed that the claimant started employment with R3 in June 2023 and that the effective date of the termination of his employment was 4 September 2024. Therefore, both parties agreed that the claimant had not been continuously employed by R3 for two years ending with the effective date of termination. Both parties agreed that, outside of being entities that were part and parcel of R3, R1 Case No. 6018483/2024 and 6012138/2025 2 and R2 had no separate status and did, themselves, not employ the claimant, therefore the claimant could not bring a claim for unfair dismissal against R1 and/or R2. 4. This means that section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 operates as a statutory bar to the claimant bringing a claim of unfair dismissal against any or all of R1, R2 and R3. Therefore such a claim could not possibly succeed. 5. Therefore the “no reasonable prospect of success” limb of rule 38(1)(a) applies. 6. Since this is a jurisdictional point because section operates as a bar to the claimant bringing a claim for unfair di…