Case 1402384/2022 · Employment Tribunal
L M De Deus De Deus v Alan Waters — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402384/2022
- Decision date
- 31 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L M De Deus De Deus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s complaint that the respondent had failed to pay a redundancy payment. It held that the complaint could not proceed because the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years, so the statutory requirement for bringing a complaint for unpaid redundancy pay was not met.
The tribunal referred to sections 163 and 177 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It recorded that the claimant was given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was given. The redundancy payment complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the complaint because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore was not entitled to bring a complaint for unpaid redundancy pay under ss.163 and 177 ERA 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- ss.163 and 177 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.