Case 2202427/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Lambrou First v Louis Vuitton UK Limited Second Respondent: Harrods Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202427/2019
- Decision date
- 20 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Professor
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Z Lambrou First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because Mr Z Lambrou had less than two years of continuous employment with Louis Vuitton UK Limited. No remedy was awarded on that claim because the tribunal did not find it to be within the unfair dismissal jurisdiction on the facts found.
The disability discrimination claim against the First Respondent failed because the tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The disability discrimination claim against the Second Respondent also failed, but on procedural grounds: it was presented out of time and the tribunal decided it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit.
The breach of contract claim against the First Respondent was struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, but no separate written reasons were provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had less than two years of continuous employment with the First Respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the claim against the Second Respondent was presented out of time and the tribunal was not satisfied that it was just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out because the tribunal held the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.