Case 1305892/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Lord v Mode transport planning (London) Ltd and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305892/2023
- Decision date
- 26 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss R Lord
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R Lord brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Mode Transport Planning (London) Ltd and Christopher Holdup. The tribunal held that the complaint could not proceed because the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under the statutory qualifying service requirement referred to in the reasons.
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 therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
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 therefore was not entitled to bring the claim. The judgment text refers to 'Section 108 of the Employment Tribunal Rights Act 1996'; this appears to be a transcription error in the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.