Case 1305471/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Smart v Midway Care Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305471/2023
- Decision date
- 9 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Smart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs H Smart brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Midway Care. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the proceedings. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity, she did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment therefore states that the claim was struck out.
No monetary remedy was awarded, and the judgment does not record any further liability findings beyond the jurisdictional bar under section 108 ERA 1996.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the claimant complained of unfair dismissal, but struck the claim out because section 108 ERA 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The judgment also states that 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.