Case 1404105/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs E M Dorante Solorzano Mr R Faria Almeda v Tiago Coelho t/a Happy Cod — 2021

Case reference: 1404105/2020
Decision date: 14 May 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Livesey Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs E M Dorante Solorzano Mr R Faria Almeda

Respondent

Tiago Coelho t/a Happy Cod

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

By a letter dated 11 March 2021, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why their unfair dismissal complaints should not be struck out. The tribunal said the complaints appeared not to meet the 2-year requirement and that insufficient answers had been provided to question 1 of the tribunal's earlier letter of 11 March 2021.

The claimants did not make any sufficient written representations and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Livesey struck out the unfair dismissal complaints. The judgment records the strike-out of the unfair dismissal complaints only and does not determine the merits of the remaining claims.

The judgment states that the claimants' remaining claims would continue to a hearing, with notice to be sent to the parties in due course. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal issued a letter dated 11 March 2021 giving the claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaints should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that they did not meet the 2-year requirement and that insufficient answers had been provided to question 1 of the tribunal's 11 March 2021 letter. No sufficient written representations or hearing request was received, so the unfair dismissal complaints were struck out. The remaining claims were said to continue to a hearing.	Struck out	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.