Case 1603324/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Squeglia v Filco Supermarkets Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1603324/2023
- Decision date
- 13 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Othen Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Squeglia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with an unfair dismissal complaint brought by Mr P Squeglia against Filco Supermarkets Ltd. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Squeglia had been employed for less than two years at the effective date of termination.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to bring the proceedings. It also recorded that he had been given the opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not do so. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service, and the claimant had less than two years' service at the effective date of termination. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.