Case 2600166/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. P Gascoine v Ottimo Restaurants Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600166/2023
- Decision date
- 22 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. P Gascoine
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint and his complaint of failure to pay a redundancy payment because the claimant confirmed by email dated 15 March 2023 that he had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. The judgment records that those complaints required two years' service and that he was therefore not entitled to bring them.
The tribunal also struck out the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. It had directed the claimant on 12 May 2023 to provide a calculation of the amount claimed, but he did not comply. After a further warning letter dated 24 August 2023, he still did not respond and had not actively pursued that part of the claim.
The reasons also note that the unauthorised deductions complaint appeared to duplicate case number 2600161/2023, for which judgment in the claimant's favour had already been issued. The judgment in this case states that case 2600166/2023 was struck out and that the judgment in case 2600161/2023 was unaffected.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant confirmed by email dated 15 March 2023 that he had been employed for less than two years. The tribunal held he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the claimant's failure to pay a redundancy payment complaint could not proceed because he had less than two years' service. It was struck out on that basis. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said the wages complaint had not been actively pursued after the claimant failed to provide the ordered calculation and did not respond to the warning letter. It also noted that the complaint appeared to duplicate case 2600161/2023, where judgment in the claimant's favour had already been issued. | Struck out | — | — |
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.