Case 2415315/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Dimitrov v Fresh Direct (UK) Limited — 2018
- Case reference
- 2415315/2018
- Decision date
- 29 November 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Dimitrov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr D Dimitrov brought claims for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment against Fresh Direct Limited. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and section 155 required the same period for a redundancy payment claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It therefore concluded that he was not entitled to bring either complaint. It also found that he had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given an opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out.
Both claims were struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so he was not entitled to bring a redundancy payment claim under section 155 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 155 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.