Case 2207249/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs C Sabau v Jon Adam Ltd — 2019

Case reference: 2207249/2018
Decision date: 15 July 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs C Sabau

Respondent

Jon Adam Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing on 11 July 2019, Employment Judge A M Snelson, sitting alone at London Central, heard submissions for both parties and decided that the Claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996, ss 100, 101A and 104 should be struck out. The stated basis was that the complaints had no reasonable prospect of success. Oral reasons were given at the hearing.

The judgment records that the Claimant did not attend. It also records that the advocates said no further case management intervention was required. In light of the narrowed scope of the case, the tribunal also noted that the three-day allocation could be reduced to two days, with the third day deleted.

The judgment contains no liability findings beyond the strike-out order and no monetary award or remedy determination. It notes only that the respondents anticipated a possible costs application, to be made in writing if pursued.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The preliminary hearing judgment states that the Claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996, ss 100, 101A and 104 were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.