Case 1401205/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N A Adjei Mr S Cardozo v Rayan Facilities Management — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401205/2024
- Decision date
- 4 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N A Adjei Mr S Cardozo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with an unfair dismissal complaint brought by Mr N A Adjei and Mr S Cardozo against Rayan Facilities Management. It recorded that both claimants complained of unfair dismissal and that they had been employed for less than two years. The judgment identified section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as requiring not less than two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimants were not entitled to bring the complaint. It also noted that they failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimants' other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that both claimants complained of unfair dismissal. The tribunal struck out the complaint because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimants had been employed for less than two years. The judgment says they did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.