Case 2304052/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Rau v Brixton Jamm/ Jamm South Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304052/2022
- Decision date
- 25 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Rau
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint against Brixton Jamm/Jamm South Ltd. It held that Mr M Rau did not have the qualifying two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that there were no exceptional circumstances disapplying that requirement.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not made written representations, or had not made any sufficient written representations, explaining why strike out should not be ordered, and had not requested a hearing. The judgment records that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and no exceptional circumstances exempted the qualifying service period. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had not made, or had not made sufficient, written representations against strike out or requested a hearing. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.