Case 3320892/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Dorosenko & Mr D Dorosenko v Panoramic Products Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3320892/2021
- Decision date
- 27 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Dorosenko & Mr D Dorosenko
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimants' unfair dismissal complaint in case number 3320892/2021-3320893/2021. It found that both claimants had been employed by the respondent for less than two years, so they did not meet the qualifying period required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimants had been given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but they did not provide an acceptable reason. The judgment states that the claimants' other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimants' complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out because they had been employed for less than two years and were therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also recorded that they did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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.