Case 6006564/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Charalampos Kesoglou v Conti Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006564/2025
- Decision date
- 9 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rao Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Charalampos Kesoglou
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningNeither party attended or was represented at the final hearing. The Tribunal was satisfied that both parties had been notified of the hearing and that practicable enquiries had been made, so it proceeded in their absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The claimant said he was unfairly dismissed without notice and gave employment dates from 21 October 2024 to 18 February 2025. The Tribunal found that he did not meet the two-year qualifying period for a non-automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and on the limited information provided it could not see a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was found not well-founded and was dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment addresses unfair dismissal only. Although the listing category also mentions breach of contract, the PDF text does not adjudicate a separate breach of contract claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- s.108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.