Case 3200961/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2022

Case reference: 3200961/2022
Decision date: 26 September 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tegerdine Appearances

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's unfair dismissal, race discrimination, notice pay and holiday pay complaints, and also sought deposit orders in relation to the race discrimination, notice pay and holiday pay complaints. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. That complaint was therefore dismissed.

The tribunal refused the respondent's applications in relation to the race discrimination, notice pay and holiday pay complaints. It recorded that those complaints did not have no reasonable prospect of success and had more than little reasonable prospect of success, so the applications to strike them out or to make deposit orders were refused. No substantive liability findings or monetary award were made in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Dismissed because the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim: the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	The respondent's application to strike out the race discrimination complaint, or alternatively for a deposit order, was refused. The tribunal said the claim had more than little reasonable prospect of success.	Other	Race	—
Breach of contract	The respondent's application to strike out the notice pay complaint, or alternatively for a deposit order, was refused. The tribunal said the complaint had more than little reasonable prospect of success.	Other	—	—
Holiday pay	The respondent's application to strike out the holiday pay complaint, or alternatively for a deposit order, was refused. The tribunal said the complaint had more than little reasonable prospect of success.	Other	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.