Case 2303355/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S di Lorenzo v Marco Gattafoni and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303355/2022
- Decision date
- 29 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S di Lorenzo
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 7 November 2022, the tribunal gave Mr S di Lorenzo an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why his complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to pay a redundancy payment should not be struck out. The tribunal identified the reason for proposed strike out as the claimant’s failure to satisfy the qualifying two years' service requirement under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the absence of any exceptional circumstances exempting that requirement.
The claimant did not make sufficient representations and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out both the unfair dismissal complaint and the complaint of failure to pay a redundancy payment. The judgment states that a notice of hearing would be sent for the claimant’s remaining claims in due course.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Struck out for the same reason as the unfair dismissal complaint: no qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and no sufficient representations against strike out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the tribunal found the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and had not shown any exceptional circumstances to exempt the qualifying period. | 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.