Case 3200067/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Vilanou v The Ferry Boat Inn (Fambridge) Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING (OPEN) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200067/2022
- Decision date
- 12 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Vilanou
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing on 9 December 2022, Employment Judge B Elgot struck out and dismissed the disability discrimination claim and the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found that, at the relevant time, Ms Vilanou did not have a disability as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claim. It also found that she did not have the two-year qualifying period of employment required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment records that the full merits hearing listed for 4, 5 and 6 April 2023 would be vacated. It also states that one claim remained, namely Ms Vilanou's claim that she was entitled to unpaid wages and tips, and that issue was to be listed for a one-hour telephone hearing in due course.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Struck out and dismissed because the tribunal found Ms Vilanou did not have a disability within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out and dismissed because Ms Vilanou did not have the two-year qualifying period of employment required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- section 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.