Case 1804421/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Mahay v Jet2holidays Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1804421/2019
- Decision date
- 28 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Mahay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the Preliminary Hearing on 8 October 2019. He said he had not received the Notice of Hearing and that it had been sent to his old postal address, but the Tribunal recorded that the Notice had in fact been sent to him by email.
By a letter dated 9 October 2019, sent to the claimant's new postal address, the Tribunal gave him an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should be struck out because it had not been actively pursued and/or had been conducted unreasonably. The Tribunal also gave him an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the unfair dismissal claim should be struck out because he did not have the two years' service required to qualify to bring that claim.
The claimant did not make any representations or request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim on 28 October 2019.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim after the claimant failed to attend the Preliminary Hearing on 8 October 2019 and failed to make any representations after the Tribunal's letter of 9 October 2019. The Tribunal also invited representations on whether the unfair dismissal claim should be struck out because the claimant did not have two years' service to qualify to bring it. | Struck out | — | — |
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.