Case 2600463/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. F Allegrini v Agaricus Robotics Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600463/2023
- Decision date
- 11 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. F Allegrini
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint. It 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 Mr Allegrini had been employed by Agaricus Robotics Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that he had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.