Case 1800063/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Harlow Pizza Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800063/2020
- Decision date
- 25 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dealt with unfair dismissal complaints brought by Mr R Watt, Mr P Dayabaran, Mr GO Grozavu, Mr T Genebu, Mr A Taher, Mr S V Fuentes and Mr F R Partida against Harlow Pizza Limited. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years’ service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment found that the Claimants had all been employed for less than two years. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that they were not entitled to bring unfair dismissal complaints. It also recorded that the Claimants had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out.
Accordingly, the unfair dismissal complaints were struck out. The judgment states that the Claimants’ 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 judgment covers the Claimants’ unfair dismissal complaints only. It records that each Claimant had less than two years’ service and had not given an acceptable reason why the claims should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.