Case 3311767/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Lewis v Firmatas — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311767/2022
- Decision date
- 26 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Lewis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment dated 5 June 2023 records that the complaint of unfair dismissal and the claim for failure to pay a redundancy payment were struck out. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that Mr O Lewis had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded 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 reasons section states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The reasons deal with the unfair dismissal complaint and conclude it was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The opening judgment line states that the claim for failure to pay a redundancy payment was struck out, but the reasons section does not separately discuss that claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.