Case 2301802/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nuno Marques v Wettons Cleaning Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301802/2024
- Decision date
- 20 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Nuno Marques
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Nuno Marques brought a claim against Wettons Cleaning Services Limited. The tribunal recorded that the claim form stated he had less than two years' service when his employment ended. On 19 February 2024 the claimant was notified that it is generally necessary to have two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim and was given until 4 March 2024 to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no response was received.
At the hearing on 4 November 2024, the claimant produced documentation showing that he was dismissed without notice by letter dated 13 November 2023. The tribunal noted that there are limited exceptions to the two-year rule, including dismissal for raising health and safety matters or asserting a statutory right, but no such exception was raised. The claimant's case was that the respondent did not follow a fair process before dismissing him, but that was not enough to overcome the service requirement.
The judgment also noted that the claim form mentioned 'other payments', but no such payments, including unpaid wages, could be identified. The tribunal therefore confined the case to a complaint of unfair dismissal and struck out that complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant’s own claim form stated he had less than two years’ service when employment ended. The tribunal gave notice on 19 February 2024 inviting reasons why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out; no response was received. At the hearing the claimant produced a dismissal letter dated 13 November 2023, but no exception to the two-year rule was raised. | Struck out | — | — |
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.