Case 2303627/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Kanabkaew Miss P Thesvisarn Mr B Utthayanin v H-Line Hospitality Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303627/2023
- Decision date
- 26 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Kanabkaew Miss P Thesvisarn Mr B Utthayanin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a complaint that the claimants were entitled to a redundancy payment under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. By a letter dated 20 October 2023, the tribunal invited representations or a hearing on whether that complaint should be struck out because it appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success, given that the claimants had been employed for less than two years.
The claimants replied by email on 1 November 2023. The tribunal read that response as showing that the "redundancy pay" being claimed was in substance based on an alleged contractual agreement with the respondent, rather than a statutory redundancy payment. It said that contractual argument could be pursued under the separate complaint of breach of contract, which would proceed.
The tribunal held that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' continuous employment to claim a statutory redundancy payment, and there was no dispute that the claimants did not satisfy that requirement. The statutory redundancy payment claim was therefore struck out, and the remainder of the claim was allowed to proceed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Statutory redundancy payment claim under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal said the claimants' email indicated the redundancy pay point was really a contractual argument, which could be pursued under breach of contract, but the statutory redundancy payment claim itself had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimants did not have two years' continuous employment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37
- s.155 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.