Case 6018435/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Addo v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018435/2024
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Addo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the public preliminary hearing. The respondent was represented by counsel, and Employment Judge Yardley gave judgment following the hearing.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant did not have the necessary two years' qualifying service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and because the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit.
The race discrimination claim was also struck out. The tribunal applied Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a), finding that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the alleged acts took place after the claimant's employment had ended and the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal struck out the race discrimination claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) because it had no reasonable prospect of success; the alleged acts took place after employment had ended and the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a)
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.