Case 1600904/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss F Nawaz v Silurian Hotel Management Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600904/2023
- Decision date
- 1 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss F Nawaz
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s claim for a redundancy payment. It held that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant an employee must have at least two years’ service to qualify, and found that Miss F Nawaz had been employed by Silurian Hotel Management Ltd for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that she did not have the right to a redundancy payment. It noted that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but she did not provide an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the redundancy payment claim. It expressly stated that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so she did not have the right to a redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 155 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.