Case 2413521/2020 · Employment Tribunal

1. Mr A Camacho 2. Miss AI Ramos Bermejo v People Solutions Ltd — 2020

Case reference: 2413521/2020
Decision date: 10 November 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Batten Date

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

1. Mr A Camacho 2. Miss AI Ramos Bermejo

Respondent

People Solutions Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimants, Mr A Camacho and Miss AI Ramos Bermejo, each brought complaints of unfair dismissal against People Solutions. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that both claimants had been employed for less than two years.

On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimants were not entitled to bring unfair dismissal complaints. It also recorded that they had been given the opportunity to explain why their complaints should not be struck out, but failed to give an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaints.

The judgment states that the claimants' other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaints under section 108 ERA 1996 because each claimant had less than two years' service and had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out.	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.