Case 1303398/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Riva v Woodhall Support Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303398/2023
- Decision date
- 25 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Riva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 18 April 2023, the Tribunal invited the claimant to make representations or request a hearing on whether the unfair dismissal claim should be struck out because she did not have the requisite two years' service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim was struck out on that basis.
The claimant also sought to pursue automatic unfair dismissal under section 104(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal struck out that aspect because it had no reasonable prospect of success, the infringement complained of having occurred after the allegation that a relevant statutory right had been infringed. The judgment states that this strike out did not affect the other claims brought by the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim struck out because the claimant did not have the requisite two years' service to bring a claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104(1)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success; the infringement complained of occurred after the allegation that the relevant statutory right was infringed. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.104(1)(b) ERA 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.