Case 1307871/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Burns v Gitpod GMBH and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 1307871/2023
- Decision date
- 22 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harding Date
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Ms S Burns
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Ms S Burns against Gitpod GMBH, Lets Deel Limited, Johannes Landgraf and Eva Hyder. It found that she had been employed for less than two years. Applying section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal concluded that she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal also recorded that Ms Burns was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not give an acceptable reason. The judgment therefore states that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The judgment expressly says that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No financial 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 held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. It also recorded 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.