Case 1600753/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Gebissa v 2 Sisters Food Group Ltd Solway Foods Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600753/2023
- Decision date
- 4 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Representation
- Venue
- Newport
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Gebissa
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr B Gebissa's unfair dismissal complaint because it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. The reason given was that he did not have the required period of continuous service. No remedy was awarded in relation to that complaint.
The tribunal also dealt with a race discrimination claim. It found that the claim had been presented outside the time limit under s.123 Equality Act 2010, but decided that it was just and equitable to extend time to the date of presentation, 23 April 2023. The claim was therefore permitted to proceed to a final hearing, and this judgment did not determine the merits of the race discrimination allegation.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because it did not have jurisdiction: the claimant did not have the required period of continuous service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal recorded that the race discrimination claim was presented outside the time limit under s.123 Equality Act 2010, but held it was just and equitable to extend time to 23 April 2023. The claim was allowed to proceed to a final hearing, so no merits outcome was determined in this decision. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
- continuous service requirement
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.