Case 3203842/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr H Candemir v Ion man Ariston developments — 2022

Case reference: 3203842/2022
Decision date: 3 August 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Russell Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr H Candemir

Respondent

Ion man Ariston developments

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal considered a complaint of unfair dismissal and a claim for a redundancy payment. It held that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years, so he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why that complaint should not be struck out.

For the same reason, the tribunal said the redundancy payment claim could not proceed, and it struck out the complaints of unfair dismissal and unpaid redundancy payment. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints of unpaid wages, outstanding holiday pay and failure to pay notice were not affected by this decision.

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 and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.	Struck out	—	—
Redundancy	The tribunal held that the claim for a redundancy payment could not proceed because there is a requirement for not less than two years' service.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.