Case 6010256/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Zbieralski v DPDgroup UK Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010256/2025
- Decision date
- 29 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Zbieralski
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with a complaint of unfair dismissal. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Mr S Zbieralski had been employed by whichever respondent employed him, if either, for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to bring the proceedings. It also recorded that he had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but he did not provide an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It also stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the judgment, but no other claim was determined in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service with whichever respondent employed him, if either. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable 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.