Case 2200490/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. S. Jaundrill v Rococo Chocolates London Ltd London Central — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200490/2020
- Decision date
- 2 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goodman JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. S. Jaundrill
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented claims for unfair dismissal and sexual orientation discrimination on 7 February 2020. On the ET1, he entered employment start and end dates that indicated about one year of service at dismissal. The tribunal wrote to the claimant on 19 February 2020 asking him to show cause why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out because he did not appear to have the two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not reply, and the respondent had not responded to either claim at that stage.
In the absence of any further information from the claimant, the tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for want of qualifying service. The sexual orientation discrimination claim was not dismissed on that basis because it was not subject to any qualifying service requirement, and the judgment records that it would proceed. The tribunal extended the respondent's time to respond to that claim until 3 July 2020 and postponed the preliminary hearing for case management to 20 July 2020. The final hearing remained listed for 26 to 28 October 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of qualifying service; the tribunal noted the claimant appeared to have been employed for about one year, below the two years required by section 108 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Presented on the ET1, but this judgment only dealt with case management and time for response; no merits determination was made. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 108 qualifying service requirement
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.