Case 2226613/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Vella v Royal Automobile Club Ltd and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2226613/2024
- Decision date
- 28 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Vella
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Vella brought a claim against Royal Automobile Club Ltd and Mr Anthony Spence. The tribunal held that the claim was one for ordinary unfair dismissal only. It found that the claimant had less than the two years' continuous employment required to bring a complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal.
The tribunal also considered the wording in paragraph 8.1 of the claim form, which referred to 'Automatically unfair dismissal under probationary period and detriment'. It held that no statutory provisions relating to unlawful detriment or automatically unfair dismissal were identified, and there was nothing in the narrative attachment to indicate that a jurisdictionally valid detriment or automatically unfair dismissal complaint was being brought. The tribunal stated that dismissing someone during a probationary period is not, by itself, automatically unfair dismissal. As the claimant did not have the requisite continuous employment, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction and struck out the claim. The hearing listed for 7-8 April 2025 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal treated the claim form as bringing only an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint. It noted that the reference in paragraph 8.1 to 'Automatically unfair dismissal under probationary period and detriment' did not identify any statutory detriment or automatically unfair dismissal provision within the tribunal's jurisdiction. | Struck 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.