Case 1800237/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C BARBARINO v Holiday Inn — 2022
- Case reference
- 1800237/2022
- Decision date
- 22 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C BARBARINO
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs C Barbarino brought two very similar unfair dismissal complaints against Holiday Inn under case numbers 1800237/2022 and 1800253/2022. Employment Judge JM Wade recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaints. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaints should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. The unfair dismissal complaints were therefore struck out. The judgment also records that the claimant's complaints about unpaid wages were to proceed to a video hearing on 9 June 2022 unless earlier withdrawn.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant presented two very similar unfair dismissal complaints in case numbers 1800237/2022 and 1800253/2022. Both complaints were struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaints 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.