Case 1403093/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Zdroana v PMP Recruitment Limited (in administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403093/2020
- Decision date
- 29 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Zdroana
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim form complaining of unfair dismissal. The form also referred to "gas lighting- false accusation under sexual harassment", but the tribunal treated this as part of the claimant's account that an allegedly incorrect allegation by a colleague had caused his dismissal, rather than as a separate cause of action.
The tribunal applied the two-year service requirement under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant was warned of possible strike out and given opportunities to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but the tribunal found that his correspondence did not address the issue.
The judge noted that the claimant had referred in a telephone call to discrimination on grounds of sex, but no such claim was included in the claim form, no application to amend had been made, and the pleaded facts did not explain how the alleged untrue sexual harassment allegation necessarily amounted to sex discrimination. The strike out of the unfair dismissal complaint brought the claim to a conclusion.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out after being given opportunities to respond. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 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.