Case 3302022/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K W Yeung v Epsilon Ten Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302022/2023
- Decision date
- 22 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K W Yeung
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal and claim for a redundancy payment. It found that both claims required at least two years' service, and that Mr K W Yeung had been employed by Epsilon Ten Ltd for less than two years.
Because the service requirement was not met, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring either complaint. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the claims should not be struck out.
The complaint of unfair dismissal and the redundancy payment claim were therefore struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that both the unfair dismissal complaint and the redundancy payment claim required not less than two years' service, and that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaints should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal held that the redundancy payment claim was barred because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not provide an acceptable reason to avoid strike out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.