Case 2601011/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Petrov v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601011/2020
- Decision date
- 18 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Petrov
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an attended preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant's unfair dismissal and breach of contract complaints should be struck out, or whether a deposit order should be made. The claimant left the hearing after the tribunal decided it could proceed without using the bundle, relying if necessary on the ET1 and ET3.
The tribunal declined to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the issues were fact-sensitive, including whether the respondent's actions were proportionate and within the range of reasonable responses, and that the fairness of dismissal under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was best determined after hearing all the evidence. The tribunal also refused a deposit order, noting that the evidence had not been heard and that the claimant's financial means could not be considered because he had left the hearing.
For the breach of contract claim, the tribunal held that, apart from the notice pay claim, the allegations had no reasonable prospects of success because they did not arise or remain outstanding on termination and appeared to concern alleged breaches during employment. Those allegations were struck out, while the notice pay claim remained live.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At this attended preliminary hearing, the respondent's applications to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint and for a deposit order were dismissed. The unfair dismissal claim was not finally determined and was to proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | All breach of contract allegations other than the implicit notice pay claim were struck out. The notice pay claim remained live and no deposit order was made in relation to it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
- range of reasonable responses
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Polkey reduction
- contributory conduct
- Tayside Public Transport Co Ltd t/a Travel Dundee v Reilly
- Sajid v Bond Adams
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College
- ED & F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
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.