Case 1801702/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Gaspar v Eau De Vie Leisure Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801702/2020
- Decision date
- 23 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Gaspar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's complaint of entitlement to a redundancy payment. It recorded that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to qualify for a redundancy payment, and found that Mr Gaspar had been employed for less than two years. The tribunal therefore concluded that he was not entitled to bring that complaint and that he had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why it should not be struck out.
The judgment then states that the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. It does not set out any separate findings on the merits of that complaint, and it adds that the claimant's other complaints are not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that s.155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service; the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring a redundancy payment complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that, accordingly, the unfair dismissal complaint is struck out. It does not give separate reasons for this complaint beyond that statement, and says the claimant's other complaints are not affected. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.155 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.