Case 6000002/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Maraziotis v Gin and Olive Bars and Restaurants Southampton Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 6000002/2023
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Maraziotis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr E Maraziotis brought complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment against Gin and Olive Bars and Restaurants Southampton Ltd. It found that he had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal held that he was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was not entitled to a redundancy payment under section 155 of that Act, subject to no applicable exception being identified in the judgment.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given an opportunity to do so, why those complaints should not be struck out. It therefore struck out both the unfair dismissal complaint and the redundancy payment claim. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to a redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996, absent any stated exception. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 155 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.