Case 1401804/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Vales v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1401804/2025
- Decision date
- 18 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Vales
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, notice pay, and unpaid holiday/wages were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024. The stated ground was that those complaints had no reasonable prospects of success.
The Tribunal also recorded that the claimant's complaint of victimisation was dismissed on withdrawal. The judgment states that oral reasons were given at the hearing, and no written reasons are included in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) on the ground that it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to this as a complaint for notice pay and struck it out under Rule 38(1)(a) on the ground that it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to this as unpaid holiday/wages and struck it out under Rule 38(1)(a) on the ground that it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.