Case 8000490/2025 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000490/2025 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on and September 2025 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mr L Bellinati v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000490/2025
- Decision date
- 8 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eccles
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000490/2025 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on and September 2025 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mr L Bellinati
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal first addressed whether the claimant had qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. It found that, before 4 December 2022, he worked at the respondent's premises under an agency arrangement with Adecco, was paid by Adecco, and there was no basis to imply a contract of employment with the respondent. His employment with the respondent therefore began on 4 December 2022 and ended on 1 October 2024, leaving him short of the two years' qualifying service required for an unfair dismissal claim.
The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and the Tribunal did not need to decide whether that claim had been presented in time. The judge also directed that the issue of whether the claimant was a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010 would be reserved for the final hearing because of concerns raised about the judge's personal knowledge of doctors connected with a medical letter in the bundle.
For the discrimination claims, the Tribunal found that the claim form and later submissions included an allegation concerning the appeal outcome of 8 November 2024. The Tribunal held that the discrimination claims were brought to ACAS within three months of that alleged final act and that the question whether earlier alleged acts formed part of a continuing series should be determined after full evidence at the final hearing. It therefore held that it had jurisdiction to hear the disability and race discrimination claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the claimant lacked two years' qualifying service with the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal decided only that it had jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claim. Disability status and the merits were reserved for the final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal decided only that it had jurisdiction to hear the race discrimination claim. The merits were reserved for the final hearing. | Other | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.111(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
- Porter v Bandridge Ltd
- Palmer & Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
- Trevelyans (Birmingham) Ltd v Norton
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.140B Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble
- James v London Borough of Greenwich
- Smith v Carillion Ltd
- Lutz v Ryanair DAC
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.