Case 2300552/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Straiotto v Kiss The Hippo Coffee Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300552/2019
- Decision date
- 3 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Y Straiotto
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that Mr Y Straiotto was employed by Kiss The Hippo Coffee Ltd from 10 September 2018 to 21 December 2018. Acting Regional Judge Davies had earlier directed the Claimant to explain how the Tribunal could hear the unfair dismissal claim despite his length of service.
The Claimant responded that he relied on the automatically unfair dismissal provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because he said he had been dismissed for reasons related to unlawful discriminatory acts. The Tribunal held that the automatic unfair dismissal provisions are contained in sections 98 to 104 of the Act, but that they do not include dismissal for reasons related to unlawful discriminatory acts.
As the Claimant had less than two years' service, the Tribunal found that the unfair dismissal claim had no reasonable prospect of success, that it had no jurisdiction to hear it, and dismissed the claim. The judgment states that this did not affect the Claimant's other claims, which would proceed to hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant did not have two years' service and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- two years' service requirement
- s98-104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- jurisdiction to hear the claim
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.