Case 2203909/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Bereanu v Opentrade Global Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203909/2020
- Decision date
- 6 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr C Bereanu
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It had warned the claimant that he appeared not to have been employed by the first respondent for at least two years as required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that no exception to the qualifying service requirement appeared to apply.
The tribunal also struck out the complaints brought against HM Revenue and Customs, the second respondent. It found that the claimant had failed to give acceptable reasons in response to the tribunal's warning, where it appeared he was neither employed nor engaged by the second respondent and the tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to consider those complaints.
The remaining complaints of race discrimination, notice pay, wages and holiday pay against Opentrade Global Ltd, the first respondent, were unaffected. The judgment records that a preliminary hearing would be conducted to consider necessary case management steps.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had not shown the qualifying service required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 or that an exception applied. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Complaints against the second respondent were struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The race discrimination complaint against the first respondent was expressly unaffected and remained to be case managed. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay complaint against the second respondent was struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The notice pay complaint against the first respondent was expressly unaffected and remained to be case managed. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The wages complaint against the second respondent was struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The wages complaint against the first respondent was expressly unaffected and remained to be case managed. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay complaint against the second respondent was struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The holiday pay complaint against the first respondent was expressly unaffected and remained to be case managed. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 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.