Case 1803664/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Voynov v Titan Interior Solutions Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803664/2021
- Decision date
- 2 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr K Voynov and Mr V Voynov each brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Titan Interior Solutions Ltd. The tribunal said section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that both claimants had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal therefore held that neither claimant was entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that the claimants had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaints should not be struck out, but they did not give an acceptable reason. The complaints of unfair dismissal were struck out.
The judgment states that the claimants' other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint brought by Mr K Voynov; struck out because he had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint brought by Mr V Voynov; struck out because he had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason 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.