Case 2601712/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Suter v Aspirational Brands Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601712/2023
- Decision date
- 25 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Suter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with a claim for a redundancy payment. It recorded that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 denies the right to a redundancy payment unless the employee has been employed for two years or more, and found that Mr O Suter had been employed by Aspirational Brands for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that Mr Suter did not have the right to a redundancy payment. It also noted that he was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided.
The judgment therefore struck out the redundancy payment claim. It expressly stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the redundancy payment claim because section 155 ERA 1996 requires two years' employment and the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out but did not provide an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.