Case 3303290/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Kazis v Michels Ventures 4 Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303290/2024
- Decision date
- 26 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Kazis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years’ service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Mr G Kazis had been employed by Michels Ventures 4 Limited for less than two years. On that basis, he was not entitled to pursue the complaint.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Anstis on 11 February 2025 and sent to the parties on 26 March 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996; the tribunal also noted that no acceptable reason was given why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.