Case 3303816/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A T Cairns v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3303816/2023
- Decision date
- 4 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A T Cairns
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy pay. It had written to the claimant on 25 April 2023 inviting representations or a request for a hearing on why those complaints should not be struck out.
The Tribunal recorded that unfair dismissal and redundancy payment complaints generally require two years' employment under sections 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, unless specific exceptions apply. It appeared from the claim that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, and the Tribunal stated that the claimant had not made representations, or sufficient representations, or requested a hearing. The remaining claims were left listed for hearing on 7 September 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out because the claimant appeared to have been employed for less than two years and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after being invited to do so. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The complaint was struck out because the claimant appeared to have been employed for less than two years and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after being invited to do so. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 155 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.