Case 3305285/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Harris v Enotria Winecellars Limited t/a Enotria & Coe — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305285/2024
- Decision date
- 19 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Harris
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford on 1 and 2 September 2025 before Employment Judge Quill sitting alone. The claimant, Mr A Harris, did not attend and was not represented, apart from comments made by phone on day 1. The respondent, Enotria Winecellars Limited t/a Enotria & Coe, was represented by counsel.
The tribunal held that the only complaint in the claim form was unfair dismissal. It found that references to the job application were intended to be part of the unfair dismissal allegations rather than a separate complaint. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was not well-founded and was dismissed.
In the alternative, if the claim form did include a freestanding complaint about rejection for promotion, the tribunal said it failed because no facts had been pleaded that would bring it within the tribunal’s jurisdiction, whether as an Equality Act 2010 complaint, a detriment complaint under the Employment Rights Act 1996, a breach of contract claim, or otherwise.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the only complaint in the claim form was unfair dismissal. It said comments about the job application were intended only as part of the unfair dismissal allegations. In the alternative, if there was a freestanding complaint about rejection for promotion, it failed for want of pleaded facts and jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.