Case 1806964/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Zak v Estabulo Rodizio Bar & Grill — 2019
- Case reference
- 1806964/2019
- Decision date
- 17 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Zak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Zak complained of unfair dismissal and sought a statutory redundancy payment against Estabulo Rodizio Bar & Grill. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service for any right to a redundancy payment.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, it held that he was not entitled to bring either complaint. The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the claims should not be struck out but failed to give an acceptable reason.
Accordingly, the unfair dismissal complaint and the claim for a statutory redundancy payment were struck out. The tribunal noted that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The statutory redundancy payment complaint was struck out for the same reason: the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to bring the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- 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.