Case 2402269/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Szeliski, Miss A Donlon, Mr P Misiaszek v Tokyo Industries — 2019
- Case reference
- 2402269/2019
- Decision date
- 5 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Szeliski, Miss A Donlon, Mr P Misiaszek
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered complaints by Mr S Szeliski, Miss A Donlon and Mr P Misiaszek against Tokyo Industries for unfair dismissal and redundancy payment. It held that the claimants had been employed for less than two years, which meant they could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or a redundancy payment claim under section 55.
The claimants were given an opportunity to explain why the claims should not be struck out, but they did not give an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment complaints.
The judgment states that the claimants' other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimants had less than two years' service, so they were not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimants had less than two years' service, so they were not entitled to bring a redundancy payment claim under section 55. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 55 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.