Case 6003002/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ghilase v Pphp Park Plaza Westminster — 2024
- Case reference
- 6003002/2024
- Decision date
- 6 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ghilase
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Ghilase, brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Pphp Park Plaza Westminster. Employment Judge Hart Date held that the claim should be struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant had less than two years' service. The judgment records that he started work on 23 July 2019 and his employment ended on 23 August 2020.
The tribunal issued a strike out warning on 4 June 2024 and invited the claimant to explain in writing why the claim should not be struck out. He replied the same day, referring to his claim form and saying that his employer had promised to provide him with work after the pandemic but failed to do so. The tribunal said that this was not an automatically unfair reason for dismissal.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal proceedings and ordered that the whole claim be struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Whole claim struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and the reason given did not fall within an automatically unfair reason. | 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.