Case 2209988/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Cianci v London XXI Limited t/a ME London — 2023
- Case reference
- 2209988/2023
- Decision date
- 2 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Cianci
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for London XXI Limited t/a ME London as a server from 11 April 2022. He alleged that on 21 January 2023 a floor supervisor used "racist petty names" in front of others and that he was escorted out and summarily dismissed that day. The respondent said he was invited to a meeting on 25 January 2023, where the security manager reviewed CCTV and decided to summarily dismiss him for gross misconduct, and that the appeal was later dismissed by letter dated 19 April 2023.
At the preliminary hearing on 1 December 2023, Employment Judge Norris sat alone and the claimant did not attend or participate. The judge held that the unfair dismissal complaint had to be struck out because the claimant had less than two years' continuous service for the purposes of s.108(1) ERA 1996 and had not relied on any exception.
The remainder of the claim, including the race discrimination complaint and the notice-pay/wrongful-dismissal complaint, was also struck out under Rule 37(1)(b) and/or (d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013. The Tribunal found that the claimant had deliberately and persistently disregarded procedural steps, had failed to comply with directions, and had not actively pursued the case. The judge relied on the need for a fair hearing to both parties and concluded that, without the claimant's engagement, the respondent could not fairly prepare and the Tribunal could not make findings. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the Tribunal had no jurisdiction under s.108(1) ERA 1996: the claimant had less than two years' continuous service and no exception was relied on. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant did not provide the ordered further and better particulars identifying the race or nationality relied on, the alleged racist names, or the comparator position, and did not engage with the proceedings. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The notice-pay/wrongful-dismissal complaint was included within the remainder of the claim and was struck out because the claimant did not pursue the case or attend hearings; the Tribunal said a fair adversarial hearing was not possible without his participation. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.108(1) ERA 1996
- Rule 37(1)(b) and/or (d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] IRLR 630
- Evans v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1993] ICR 151
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.