Case 2303003/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Anunlopo v Global Hospitality Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2303003/2023
- Decision date
- 19 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Anunlopo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr O Anunlopo, brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Global Hospitality Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for such a complaint and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal decided the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also found that he had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out, and the complaint was struck out accordingly.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also recorded that he did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, for the complaint not to be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.