Case 2202289/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Widowski v Pizza Hut (UK) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202289/2018
- Decision date
- 4 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Widowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Adkin, sitting alone at London Central on 8 November 2019, struck out Mr A Widowski's unfair dismissal complaint under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The tribunal recorded that the claim was brought under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, but section 108 required at least two years' service for such a complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so in a strike out warning letter dated 4 November 2019, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 37(1)(a) because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring the complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant did not attend and did not provide an acceptable reason in response to the strike out warning letter dated 4 November 2019. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.