Case 1304484/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Zabinska v Great Barr Hotel — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304484/2023
- Decision date
- 24 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Meichen Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Zabinska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs M Zabinska brought complaints of unfair dismissal and entitlement to a redundancy payment against Great Barr Hotel. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to be eligible for a redundancy payment.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. On that basis, it concluded that she was not entitled to bring either complaint. It also found that she had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out.
Accordingly, the complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment were struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings 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 meet the statutory qualifying period under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the redundancy payment complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and was not eligible under section 155 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.155 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.