Case 3300079/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Dworski v The Heavenly Bake Company Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300079/2024
- Decision date
- 11 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Dworski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996. The reason given was that Mr A Dworski did not have the two years' service required by s.108 ERA 1996, which was a prerequisite for bringing that ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment records that the strike-out was made under rule 37. It does not determine the merits of the dismissal itself; it deals only with the threshold issue of qualifying service for the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal noted that the claimant's remaining claims were not decided at this stage. Those included a race discrimination claim about his dismissal and an automatic unfair dismissal claim for whistleblowing, both of which remained listed for a preliminary hearing on 16 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was struck out because the claimant did not have the two years' service required by s.108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.