Case 2201972/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Leung v Mr Bin Li — 2022
- Case reference
- 2201972/2022
- Decision date
- 10 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Leung
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Leung, presented claims for unfair dismissal, notice pay and holiday pay against Mr Bin Li. The respondent denied that the claimant had been employed by him. The hearing was conducted on the papers before Employment Judge Stout on 10 October 2022.
The tribunal had previously warned the claimant by notice dated 11 May 2022 that the unfair dismissal claim might be struck out because the claim form did not assert two years' service, which is required for ordinary unfair dismissal under s 108 ERA 1996. The claimant was required to respond by 25 May 2022 but did not do so.
By a further notice dated 29 June 2022, REJ Wade required the claimant to produce evidence within 14 days that he had been employed by the respondent. The claimant did not respond. In light of those failures, the tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety under Rule 37(1)(a), (c) and/or (d), saying the claims had failed to comply with orders and/or had not been actively pursued and/or had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had insufficient service and/or was not employed by the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out in its entirety under Rule 37(1)(a), (c) and/or (d). The tribunal noted that the claimant did not state on the claim form that he had two years' service as required by s 108 ERA 1996, did not respond to a warning notice dated 11 May 2022, and did not provide evidence that he was employed by the respondent after a further order on 29 June 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay claim struck out in its entirety under Rule 37(1)(a), (c) and/or (d) for failure to comply with orders and/or failure actively to pursue the claim and/or because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent denied that the claimant was employed by him. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay claim struck out in its entirety under Rule 37(1)(a), (c) and/or (d) for failure to comply with orders and/or failure actively to pursue the claim and/or because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not respond to the tribunal's notices or provide evidence of employment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a), (c) and/or (d)
- s 108 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.