Case 1308802/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Bradburn v Genting Casinos — 2020
- Case reference
- 1308802/2019
- Decision date
- 8 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Bradburn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that Miss J Bradburn had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal therefore held that she was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also noted that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being 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.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant had less than two years' service. The tribunal also recorded that no acceptable reason was given, despite the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.