Case 3307758/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Fernandes v Dnata Catering UK Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 3307758/2024
- Decision date
- 6 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Smith
- Venue
- Reading via video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Fernandes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaints of unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, breach of contract and unauthorised deduction of wages under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because they had no reasonable prospect of success. It also struck out those complaints under Rule 38(1)(c) because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal Order dated 4 October 2025.
The Tribunal found that the claimant and his representative had been given time and guidance to particularise the claim, including directions about potential victimisation and whistleblowing issues. The email dated 3 November 2025 and the document dated 6 July 2023 did not provide the information required by the order and did not particularise the nature or legal basis of any claim.
The Tribunal concluded that the lack of particularisation meant it could not determine the legal basis of the claim and the respondent could not respond appropriately. It found that no lesser remedy was appropriate because the failure to particularise was a fundamental defect in the claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success and under Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with the Tribunal Order dated 4 October 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success and under Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with the Tribunal Order dated 4 October 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success and under Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with the Tribunal Order dated 4 October 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this as an unauthorised deduction of wages complaint. It was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success and under Rule 38(1)(c) for non-compliance with the Tribunal Order dated 4 October 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c)
- Rule 3 overriding objective
- Cox v Adecco Group UK & Ireland and ors 2021 ICR 1307
- Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage 2004 ICR 371 EAT
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.