Case 3302895/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Phanomai v Primark Stores Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302895/2024
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Phanomai
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned Mr T Phanomai's complaint that he was unfairly dismissed by Primark Stores Limited. The tribunal recorded that Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr Phanomai had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The tribunal concluded that Mr Phanomai was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that he had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment expressly stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment, and no remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service under Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.