Case 3303937/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Norman Nodel v Lewco Pak Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303937/2020
- Decision date
- 24 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Price Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Norman Nodel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Norman Nodel brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Lewco Pak Ltd. At a hearing at Watford by CVP on 4 February 2021, Employment Judge Price considered the preliminary question of whether the claimant had the continuous service needed to pursue an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for more than two years continuously. On that basis, it held that he was entitled to bring the proceedings. The judgment did not decide the merits of the dismissal complaint; it recorded that a separate case management order had been issued for preparation for the final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dealt only with a preliminary issue under section 108 ERA 1996. It found that the claimant had more than two years' continuous service and was therefore entitled to bring the unfair dismissal proceedings. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not determined in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.