Case 3309675/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Raymond- Orororo v Amey Services Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309675/2022
- Decision date
- 24 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr B Raymond- Orororo
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's complaint that he was unfairly dismissed. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out, including a further opportunity at the hearing on 1 March 2023 to respond by 13 March 2023. The judgment records that he did not reply. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment and were the subject of separate orders.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out for insufficient length of service. The judgment states the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment and were subject to separate orders, so they are not treated as adjudicated here. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.