Case 3200124/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Bezos v Clean and Fresh Cleaning Services — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200124/2022
- Decision date
- 23 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeny
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Bezos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 1 March 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment should not be struck out. The tribunal said the issues were that the claimant had not complied with the order of 1 March 2022 and that the claimant did not have 2 years' length of service.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment on 23 May 2022. No monetary award was made in the judgment.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claim stayed listed for hearing on 15 July 2022, but it does not identify that remaining claim in the text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations in response to the 1 March 2022 letter. The reasons given were non-compliance with the tribunal order dated 1 March 2022 and that the claimant did not have 2 years' length of service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the redundancy payment complaint for the same reasons as the unfair dismissal complaint: failure to comply with the tribunal's 1 March 2022 order and failure to make sufficient representations or request a hearing, with the additional reason that the claimant did not have 2 years' length of service. | Struck out | — | — |
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.