Case 2301491/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Luke O’Doherty v Iceland Foods Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301491/2021
- Decision date
- 14 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Luke O’Doherty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant did not attend the telephone case management hearing, and the Tribunal proceeded in his absence after attempts to reach him were unsuccessful and no explanation had been provided.
The Tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because the Claimant's stated employment dates, 7 July 2020 to 14 April 2021, meant he had less than two years' service and therefore lacked the required continuity of employment for that complaint.
The Tribunal also dismissed the referred sexual orientation discrimination matter because the Claim Form did not set out a sufficiently particularised actionable complaint. It noted that the Claimant referred to his sexuality being an issue at work and to an unspecified homophobic slur by a colleague, but gave no date, identity, wording, or clear basis for a complaint against the employer. The Tribunal further stated it had no jurisdiction to hear a defamation claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction because the Claimant did not have sufficient continuity of employment for an unfair dismissal complaint under Employment Rights Act 1996 s.108. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The ET1 referred to discrimination because of sexual orientation, but the Tribunal found there was no particularised actionable complaint and stated that any intended complaint would have no reasonable prospects of success given the lack of detail. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Other | The Claimant referred to defamation, but the Tribunal stated that the employment tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear that claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Rights Act 1996 s.108
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.