Case 2410073/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Finaru v Velocity Delivery Services — 2023

Case reference: 2410073/2022
Decision date: 8 June 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Johnson Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Finaru

Respondent

Velocity Delivery Services

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

By letters dated 10 January 2023, the tribunal gave Mr A Finaru an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why his unfair dismissal complaint and redundancy payment claim should not be struck out. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for those complaints, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.

The tribunal found that Mr Finaru had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the unfair dismissal complaint and redundancy payment claim should not be struck out. Those two complaints were therefore struck out. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's other complaint of non-payment of wages was not affected by this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out because section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service; the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason after being given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing.	Struck out	—	—
Redundancy	Struck out on the same basis as the unfair dismissal complaint: the claimant had less than two years' service and did not provide an acceptable reason after being invited to respond.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.