Case 2304854/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Benrahal v Petersham Nurseries Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304854/2020
- Decision date
- 7 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Benrahal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr R Benrahal, brought claims of unfair dismissal and direct age discrimination against Petersham Nurseries Limited. The hearing was conducted at Croydon by CVP before Employment Judge Self on 7 February 2022.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal found that the claimant did not have the requisite two years' service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the judgment states that none of the statutory exceptions applied.
The direct age discrimination claim was also dismissed. The tribunal held that it had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it pursuant to Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Claimant did not have the requisite two years' service under section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 and none of the exceptions applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination claim dismissed because it had no reasonable prospect of success and was dismissed pursuant to Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.