Case 6036956/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Correddu v Nando’s Chickenland Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6036956/2025
- Decision date
- 9 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macey Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Correddu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe London South Employment Tribunal heard the case on 9 June 2026 before Employment Judge Macey. The claimant, Mr C Correddu, appeared in person with an Italian/English interpreter, Ms Mazza. The respondent, Nando’s Chickenland Limited, was represented by Mr Green, counsel.
The tribunal struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a). The recorded reason was that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success in respect of extending the time limit to present the claim.
The judgment records that summary reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time. No monetary award, costs order, or other remedy is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states only that the claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because there was no reasonable prospect of success in extending the time limit to present the claim. The substantive cause of action is not identified in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.