Case 2304703/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Roxana Sassu-Nicolae v Otium Quo Limited t/a The Surprise Inn — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304703/2019
- Decision date
- 13 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Roxana Sassu-Nicolae
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal had to be struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought. The judgment records that Ms Roxana Sassu-Nicolae had been employed by Otium Quo Limited t/a The Surprise Inn for less than two years, so she was not entitled to pursue that complaint.
The reasons also note that the claimant did not attend the case management hearing on 13 May 2020 to explain why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out in those circumstances. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment states 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 | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not attend the case management hearing to explain why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.