Case 2212287/2023 · Employment Tribunal
not present or represented For the v Mrs E Afriyie, of Peninsula — 2023
- Case reference
- 2212287/2023
- Decision date
- 13 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
not present or represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a single unfair dismissal complaint brought by Miss Z Djadi against Neve Jewels Limited, t/a Diamond Factory. The hearing took place on 13 December 2023 before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone, with the claimant not present or represented and the respondent represented by Mrs E Afriyie of Peninsula.
The tribunal found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required the claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore was not entitled to bring the proceedings. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment accordingly struck out the claim. No monetary award was made and no remedy assessment was carried out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claim could not proceed because the claimant had less than two years' service, as required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- strike out
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.