Case 2302460/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Ayalew Tamiru v Tiffany and Co Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302460/2022
- Decision date
- 3 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kumar Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Ayalew Tamiru
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Tamiru was employed by Tiffany & Co. (UK) Holdings Limited as an accountant from 1 December 2021. In April 2022 the respondent announced a restructuring of its EMEA finance operations, and the claimant attended a redundancy meeting on 5 May 2022. He later resigned on 22 May 2022, wrote on 18 July 2022 that he wished to leave on 31 July 2022, and then agreed to be released from employment that day. He presented an ET1 on 22 July 2022 complaining of unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, notice pay and bonus pay.
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal and redundancy pay claims for want of jurisdiction because the claimant did not have the two years' continuous service required by ss.108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and no exception applied. The reasons record that the employment started on 1 December 2021 and ended on 18 July 2021, which is internally inconsistent with the rest of the chronology, but the tribunal's conclusion was that the statutory service threshold was not met. It also stated that the claimant had not shown any entitlement to contractual redundancy pay.
The tribunal did not strike out the bonus pay and notice pay claims at that stage. Applying the strike-out and deposit-order framework under Rules 37 and 39, and taking account of the claimant's position as a litigant in person, it held that his conduct did not justify strike out. It nevertheless concluded that both remaining claims had little reasonable prospect of success: the bonus claim was constrained by contractual eligibility conditions and discretion, and the notice claim was undermined by the correspondence showing that the claimant asked to leave on 31 July 2022 and was then released from notice at his request.
The tribunal ordered the claimant to provide further and better particulars of the bonus pay and notice pay claims within 21 days, failing which those claims would be struck out. It also made deposit orders of £50 for each claim, having accepted the claimant's evidence that he had limited means and declining the respondent's request for £1,000 deposits.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out for want of jurisdiction because the tribunal found the claimant had less than two years' continuous service and no exception to s.108 ERA 1996 applied. The judgment records the employment ending on 18 July 2021, which appears inconsistent with the surrounding chronology but did not alter the jurisdiction finding. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out for want of jurisdiction on the same two-year service ground under s.155 ERA 1996. The tribunal also noted that the claimant did not assert any entitlement to contractual redundancy pay and said none arose under the contract. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Claim for bonus pay not finally determined. The tribunal refused strike out, found it had little reasonable prospect of success, and ordered a £50 deposit together with further and better particulars within 21 days. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Claim for notice pay not finally determined. The tribunal refused strike out, found it had little reasonable prospect of success, and ordered a £50 deposit together with further and better particulars within 21 days. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.108 ERA 1996 two-year service rule
- s.155 ERA 1996 two-year service rule
- Rule 37 strike out
- Rule 39 deposit order
- Hasan v Tesco Stores two-stage strike out test
- Blockbuster Entertainment v James proportionality
- Cox v Adecco litigant in person guidance
- Hemdan v Ishmail little reasonable prospect test
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.