Case 1404536/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr R Standhaft v Lush Manufacturing Ltd — 2020

Case reference: 1404536/2019
Decision date: 2 January 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge R Harper MBE

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr R Standhaft

Respondent

Lush Manufacturing Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal considered Mr R Standhaft’s complaint of unfair dismissal against Lush Manufacturing Ltd. It found that he had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.

The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not give an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment records 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
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this judgment.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.