Case 1305823/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Fennell v Thebest Health And Social Care T/a Zippy Care — 2020
- Case reference
- 1305823/2020
- Decision date
- 18 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Fennell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss L Fennell brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Thebest Health And Social Care T/a Zippy Care. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It therefore held that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. The reasons also note that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite having been given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
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 been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.