Case 6043010/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Gerald Tinonetsana v Exeter City Council — 2026
- Case reference
- 6043010/2025
- Decision date
- 14 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Gerald Tinonetsana
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Gerald Tinonetsana's unfair dismissal complaint against Exeter City Council. On 16 January 2026, it warned the claimant that it was considering strike-out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the complaint appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success, and invited him to explain why it should not be struck out or to request a hearing. The claimant did not reply.
Employment Judge Lumby was satisfied that the Rule 38 grounds applied and that strike-out accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The reason given was that the claimant did not have two years of service. The judgment recorded no monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claimant did not have two years of service and the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.