Case 1602209/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Dawkes v Starbucks Coffee Company Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1602209/2023
- Decision date
- 15 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Dawkes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's claim for a redundancy payment in this judgment. It held that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented entitlement to a redundancy payment unless the employee had been employed for two years or more, and found that Mr T Dawkes had been employed by Starbucks Coffee Company Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that Mr Dawkes did not have the right to a redundancy payment. It noted that he was given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but he 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 redundancy payment claim under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected. | 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.