Case 1403295/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J C Sanjurjo Lueiro v Silva Brothers logistics Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403295/2023
- Decision date
- 18 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J C Sanjurjo Lueiro
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J C Sanjurjo Lueiro, brought complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages against Silva Brothers Logistics Ltd. The tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service, and the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out, but he did not provide an acceptable reason. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.
In relation to the unlawful deduction of wages complaint, the tribunal said the claimant had ignored correspondence from the Tribunal and was not actively pursuing the claim. That claim was dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because section 108 ERA 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant was employed for less than two years. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the claimant ignored correspondence from the Tribunal and was not actively pursuing the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.