Case 2301649/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Dincay v Airport Retail Enterprises (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301649/2019
- Decision date
- 6 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Dincay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Khalil sat alone at London South on 6 March 2020. The judgment records two claims brought by Mr Dincay against Airport Retail Enterprises (UK) Limited.
The first claim was stated to be an unfair dismissal claim under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal struck that claim out under Rule 37 because it had no reasonable prospects of success.
The second claim was a s.12 Employment Rights Act 1996 claim seeking a determination of whether the claimant had been provided with a written statement of particulars under s.1. That claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant.
No monetary remedy was awarded or assessed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claim was described as a claim for unfair dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 and was struck out under Rule 37 because it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The s.12 Employment Rights Act 1996 claim for a determination of whether the claimant had been provided with a written statement of particulars was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.