Case 3205803/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Dionisieva v Artisa Spa Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205803/2022
- Decision date
- 18 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Dionisieva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's claim for a redundancy payment. It held that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' employment before an employee has the right to a redundancy payment, and found that Miss Dionisieva had been employed by Artisa Spa Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant did not have the right to a redundancy payment. The claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but she did not give an acceptable reason. The redundancy payment claim was therefore struck out.
The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so she did not have the right to a redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996. She was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.