Case 3305592/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Asiedu Berchie v Water Direct — 2025
- Case reference
- 3305592/2024
- Decision date
- 24 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Asiedu Berchie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr K Asiedu Berchie’s claim for a redundancy payment and his complaint of unfair dismissal. It recorded that both claims required the claimant to have at least two years’ service, and found that he had been employed by Water Direct for less than two years.
The tribunal therefore concluded that he was not entitled to bring those complaints. It also found that he had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and gave no acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and gave no acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
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
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.