Case 1307854/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 1307854/2019
- Decision date
- 26 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal removed Ms L Ariss from the proceedings as a party. It then dismissed the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal complaint because he had not been continuously employed for the qualifying period of two years, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear that complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The age discrimination complaint was withdrawn by the claimant and the written judgment records that it was dismissed on that basis. The judgment also states that the sex discrimination complaint was unaffected by this decision and would continue in the proceedings. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed because the claimant had not been continuously employed for a continuous period of two years, so the tribunal did not have jurisdiction under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.