Case 2601759/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss I De Guzman (1) Mr Shay Webster (2) v Basketball League Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2601759/2024
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss I De Guzman (1) Mr Shay Webster (2)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimants' claims for a redundancy payment. It held that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 meant employees are not entitled to a redundancy payment unless they have been employed for two years or more, and found that both claimants had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimants did not have the right to a redundancy payment. It also recorded that the claimants were given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided.
The redundancy payment claim was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimants' other complaints were not affected by this decision.
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 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' employment for a redundancy payment, and the claimants had been employed for less than two years. They were given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided. The judgment states that the claimants' other complaints were not affected. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.