Case 2400793/2022 · Employment Tribunal
D Duda Respondent Bisilque Visual Communication Products Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400793/2022
- Decision date
- 9 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
1 namedClaimant
D Duda Respondent Bisilque Visual Communication Products Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Batten sitting alone at Manchester by video platform on 13 July 2022. The respondent's application to extend time for presenting its response was granted, and the response was accepted as received on 5 July 2022.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim did not proceed. The tribunal struck it out because the claimant lacked the 2 years' qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment also records that the claimant applied to amend the claim to bring a claim of automatic unfair dismissal, but that application was refused. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out because the claimant did not have 2 years' qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant's application to amend to add a claim of automatic unfair dismissal was refused. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.