Case 2500730/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A P Zlataru v Nissan Motor Manufacturing (uk) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500730/2024
- Decision date
- 13 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A P Zlataru
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A P Zlataru brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Nissan Motor Manufacturing UK Ltd. The hearing took place by Cloud Video Platform at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 12 August 2024 before Employment Judge Martin, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint because it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. The reason given was that the claimant lacked the two-year period of service required under Section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 to pursue a complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal.
The judgment records that the claimant had been given an opportunity to respond to a strike out warning issued in June 2024. It states that her response did not address why the claim should not be struck out on that basis, and that she was not able to do so in oral submissions. No remedy or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a response to the strike out warning on 25 June 2025, which is inconsistent with the August 2024 hearing and judgment dates; this does not affect the stated dismissal outcome. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.