Case 2301144/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Talpe v Elis UK — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301144/2023
- Decision date
- 9 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Talpe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal complaint was the only complaint made in the claim form that had been accepted. By a letter dated 30 May 2023, the Tribunal gave Mr G Talpe an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The reason identified by the Tribunal was that, if the claimant had less than two years of continuous employment, it would have no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint. In a response dated 1 June 2023, the claimant confirmed that he had less than two years of continuous employment with Elis UK Limited. The Tribunal therefore found that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint and struck out the claim. No remedy award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was the only complaint accepted by the Tribunal and was struck out under rule 37 because the claimant confirmed he had less than two years of continuous employment, so the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.