In person For the v Mr A Stewart-Jones — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on the papers, with the parties consenting to a remote audio hearing. The tribunal heard from the claimant and the respondent's managing director, and read emails concerning the management of kitchen arrangements at the respondent's restaurant. The claimant had worked as Head Chef from 22 May 2019 to 31 July 2019. The tribunal noted that he and Mr Brooks had been employed on the shared expectation that lunch service would be extended, but that relations deteriorated after email exchanges with Mrs Stewart-Jones on 30 July 2019.

The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had only nine weeks' service and therefore did not satisfy the two-year qualifying period in s.108 ERA 1996. The tribunal held that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success on that basis.

The sexual orientation discrimination claim was also struck out. The tribunal accepted that the claimant said Mr Stewart-Jones may have referred to Mr Brooks as his boyfriend, but found that the reason for dismissal was the falling out over the proposed lunch arrangements and the very angry reaction to the claimant's emails. It also noted that the respondent had previously employed the claimant's female partner and knew that he was in a heterosexual relationship, which the tribunal treated as inconsistent with the contention that the dismissal was because of actual or perceived sexual orientation.

The claim for notice pay and/or unlawful deduction of wages was struck out because the claimant accepted that he had received his statutory notice pay and all money owed to him. The tribunal therefore found no reasonable prospect of success on that claim either. No deposit order or monetary award was made.