Case 2402148/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Finaru v Raina Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402148/2021
- Decision date
- 27 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Peck
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Finaru
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 26 November 2021, the tribunal gave Mr A Finaru an opportunity to explain why his claim should not be struck out, either because it had not been actively pursued or because it had no reasonable prospects of success. No reply was received. The tribunal therefore found that the claim had not been actively pursued and also had no reasonable prospects of success.
The judgment states that, to proceed with the unfair dismissal complaint and the claim for a statutory redundancy payment, the claimant would need to establish that he was an employee within section 230(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and, for redundancy pay, that he had two years' continuous employment under section 108 of the same Act. The claimant made no representations in response to the respondent's assertion that he had been engaged as an independent contractor and therefore was not an employee for these purposes.
In any event, the tribunal recorded that it was not in dispute that the claimant had been engaged by the respondent for less than two years, from 5 November 2020 to 27 January 2021. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claim was not actively pursued and had no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant did not respond to the tribunal's letter of 26 November 2021 and made no representations on employee status. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out for the same reasons as the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal noted that the claimant did not respond and had not shown that he met the employee and qualifying service requirements for a statutory redundancy payment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 230(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.