Case 2200284/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Topi v Great Greek Grill House — 2022
- Case reference
- 2200284/2021
- Decision date
- 10 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Topi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Miss Topi's claim. It found that she had less than the two years' continuous employment needed to bring an unfair dismissal complaint and that she had not pleaded that any exception under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applied. By letter dated 10 January 2022, she was given until 24 January 2022 to say whether any exception applied, but no response was received.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant did not engage with the respondent or the proceedings, including failures to provide witness statements, to communicate about relevant documents, and to agree a bundle. By email dated 31 January 2022, the tribunal warned that it was considering strike out under rule 37 for non-compliance and/or because the claim had not been actively pursued, and gave the claimant until 7 February 2022 to make representations or request a hearing. No response was received. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit, and separately recorded that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because it had no jurisdiction to hear it given the absence of sufficient continuous employment. The hearing listed for 14-15 February 2022 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37
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.