Case 2204106/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Carmichael v Safilo UK Limted — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204106/2021
- Decision date
- 28 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Carmichael
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at London Central Employment Tribunal on 27 September 2022. Employment Judge Gordon Walker gave the judgment orally. The claimant, Mr C Carmichael, appeared in person and the respondent, Safilo UK Limited, was represented by Ms J Charalambous.
The claim of unfair dismissal under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because the claimant did not have the qualifying service required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. No finding on the merits of dismissal is recorded, as the claim failed at the qualifying service stage.
The claim for a redundancy payment under section 135 Employment Rights Act 1996 was also dismissed because the claimant did not have the qualifying service required by section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the qualifying service required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant did not have the qualifying service required by section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 135 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 155 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.