Case 3302678/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Cramer v Outpayce Ltd (Amadeus Subsidiary) — 2026
- Case reference
- 3302678/2025
- Decision date
- 20 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Cramer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained that he was unfairly dismissed. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out. He referred to section 108(3)(c) and dismissal connected with discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, but the tribunal stated there was nothing to that effect in that provision. The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out, while other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant had less than two years' service. The judgment says other complaints, including any constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claim to the extent made, were not affected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.