Case 3304707/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Basile v Margot Bakery Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304707/2024
- Decision date
- 15 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Basile
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr M Basile had been employed by Margot Bakery Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also found that he had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment. The decision was approved by Employment Judge Quill Date on 29 January 2025 and sent to the parties on 15 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. | 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.