Case 2305304/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Thurston v The Panini Brothers Ltd (in liquidation) and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305304/2024
- Decision date
- 6 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macey Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms D Thurston
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a complaint of failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment brought by Ms D Thurston against The Panini Brothers Ltd (in liquidation) and the Secretary of State for Business. It found that the claimant had less than two years’ continuous service with the respondent at the date of dismissal.
On that basis, and pursuant to section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint as presented. The complaint was therefore struck out because it had no reasonable prospects of success.
No monetary award was made and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than 2 years’ continuous service at the date of dismissal and, pursuant to section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint as presented. The complaint of failure to pay a statutory redundancy payment was struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.