Case 1303733/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Simmons v A Hand Plumbing Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1303733/2022
- Decision date
- 9 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Simmons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Miss E Simmons's unfair dismissal complaint could not proceed because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service. It found that she had been employed by A Hand Plumbing Limited for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment records that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not provide an acceptable reason. The tribunal accordingly struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also found she did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.