Case 2304730/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Betts v Wagamama — 2025
- Case reference
- 2304730/2025
- Decision date
- 17 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Betts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr O Betts, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Wagamama. The tribunal stated that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Betts had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity, he failed to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It expressly stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by 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 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He also did not give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal said the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.