Case 1308833/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Rosemarie Sarah Jukes v Midland Mencap — 2024
- Case reference
- 1308833/2023
- Decision date
- 26 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Rosemarie Sarah Jukes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Jukes brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Midland Mencap. Employment Judge Edmonds held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not give an acceptable reason. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, but it does not determine them.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, found that the claimant had less than two years' service, and struck out the complaint after she did not give an acceptable reason why it 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.