Case 2400021/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Martin v Garvey’s Promenade Hotel — 2019
- Case reference
- 2400021/2019
- Decision date
- 13 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sherratt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr V Martin complained of unfair dismissal and redundancy against Garvey’s Promenade Hotel. Employment Judge Sherratt held that the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years’ service to present an unfair dismissal complaint and to seek a redundancy payment, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out both the unfair dismissal and redundancy complaints. The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by the decision, and that the remaining claims were listed for hearing on 29 May 2019.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore could not seek a redundancy payment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- two years’ qualifying service under the 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.