Case 3200339/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Galvez v La Tagliata Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 3200339/2020
- Decision date
- 30 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Galvez
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr M Galvez's unfair dismissal complaint and his claim for a redundancy payment. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to present an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment also records that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaints should not be struck out, but he did not give an acceptable reason. The tribunal therefore struck out both the unfair dismissal and redundancy payment complaints. It noted that the claimant's other complaints of termination agreement, unpaid wages and holiday pay would proceed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service; the tribunal referred to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and said he had not given an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out together with the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment does not set out a separate reason for this claim beyond the strike-out decision. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.