Case 1302742/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Coombs v Beavers Worcester Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1302742/2021
- Decision date
- 30 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Coombs
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service before a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Miss G Coombs had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that by email dated 21 March 2022 the claimant accepted that she had insufficient service to pursue that claim.
Accordingly, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, but it did not adjudicate them in this judgment and did not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore did not satisfy the section 108 ERA 1996 qualifying service requirement. The claimant had also accepted in an email dated 21 March 2022 that she had insufficient service to bring the complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.