Case 6016492/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Ardesi v LiveWest Homes Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6016492/2024
- Decision date
- 4 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer Representation
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Ardesi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Exeter on 4 December 2025, Employment Judge Volkmer dealt with the case by way of strike out and dismissal rather than a merits hearing. The Claimant's detriment complaint based on making a protected interest disclosure, said to arise from the giving of references, was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal struck out the ordinary unfair dismissal and redundancy payment complaints because Mr Ardesi did not have two years' continuous service with LiveWest Homes Limited. It also dismissed the automatically unfair dismissal complaint, the notice-based breach of contract complaint, the unlawful deductions from wages complaint, the complaint for accrued but unpaid holiday pay, and the complaint in relation to other payments because those claims were not presented within the applicable time limit, and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so.
The direct race discrimination complaint was also out of time. The tribunal held that it was not just and equitable to extend the time limit, so that claim was dismissed. No remedy was awarded because all complaints were disposed of at the preliminary hearing.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Detriment complaint on the ground of making a protected interest disclosure, related to the giving of references; struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal complaint; struck out because the Claimant did not have two years' continuous service with the Respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment complaint; struck out because the Claimant did not have two years' continuous service with the Respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal complaint; dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract complaint relating to notice; dismissed for want of jurisdiction because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages |
Legal tests applied
4 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- two years' continuous service
- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.