Case 2300427/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Mitrica v The Hengist Village Bar and Dining Rooms Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300427/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Mitrica
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt with the claim as a length of service strike-out judgment. It recorded that Mr D Mitrica brought complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment against The Hengist Village Bar and Dining Rooms Limited. The tribunal found that he had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed because s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service. It also held that, under s.155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employee with less than two years' service has no right to a redundancy payment. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claims should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason.
The tribunal therefore struck out both the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment complaints. It stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under s.108 ERA 1996 because the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out under s.155 ERA 1996 because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring a redundancy payment claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.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.