Case 6006588/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Roya Meyeri v Motorcycle World LLP — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006588/2024
- Decision date
- 18 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Roya Meyeri
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningRoya Meyeri worked for Motorcycle World LLP from 21 June 2022, first as a service manager and then as a sales executive, and her employment ended on 30 June 2024. In her ET1 presented on 24 July 2024 she alleged unfair dismissal and sought a redundancy payment, notice pay, arrears of pay and other payments, together with reinstatement and £7,000 compensation. At the preliminary hearing the claimant withdrew the arrears of pay and other payments complaints, and the tribunal proceeded to determine the respondent's strike-out application.
The tribunal struck out the redundancy, notice pay and unfair dismissal complaints under rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It held that the claim form and the claimant's oral evidence did not identify facts capable of supporting a redundancy situation under s.139 ERA 1996, and that there was no pleaded or evidenced case showing a dismissal within s.95 ERA 1996. The respondent relied on an email from Mr Okhovati to payroll dated 19 June 2024 stating that Roya's last pay related to her leaving on 30 June 2024, and the claimant accepted that 30 June 2024 was her last day. The tribunal said that email was not determinative by itself, but the material before it still did not establish dismissal or constructive dismissal.
The tribunal also held that the notice pay complaint could not succeed on the case advanced because the claimant had not identified circumstances in which she was dismissed or otherwise entitled to notice pay on the basis advanced. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages and other payments were dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success and no redundancy situation was identified on the claimant's pleaded or oral case. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay complaint was struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because the tribunal held that, on the case advanced, there was no dismissal within s.95 ERA 1996 and no basis for a notice-pay entitlement. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 38(1)(a) because the claimant had not set out circumstances amounting to a dismissal within s.95 ERA 1996, whether under s.95(1)(a) or s.95(1)(c). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- rule 38(1)(a) ET Procedure Rules 2024
- s.86 ERA 1996
- s.95 ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.139 ERA 1996
- rule 32 ET Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 40 ET Procedure Rules 2024
- Williams v Real Care Agency Ltd
- Cox v Adecco
- Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson
- Shestak v Royal College of Nursing
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.