Case 3201006/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Ganiza v Oyo Technology and Hospitality UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201006/2020
- Decision date
- 11 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Ganiza
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs C Ganiza, brought complaints of unfair dismissal and entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment against Oyo Technology and Hospitality UK Limited. The tribunal recorded that she had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal referred to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which requires two years' service to be entitled to a statutory redundancy payment. On that basis, it found that the claimant was not entitled to bring either complaint.
The tribunal also found that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaints should not be struck out. It therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint, and the judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The statutory redundancy payment complaint was struck out on the same basis: the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring the complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and gave no acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.