Case 1400072/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Wainwright v Searcys Tansley & Company Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400072/2020
- Decision date
- 5 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Wainwright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal made a strike out judgment on the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that, by letter dated 14 January 2020, the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaint should not be struck out, because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevents an unfair dismissal claim unless the claimant has two years' service or more.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The judgment also records that the claimant's remaining claims were listed for a telephone case management hearing on 22 July 2020, so those claims were not determined in this judgment.
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 after giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why it should not be struck out. The reason given was section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, under which a claimant is not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless employed for two years or more. The claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37
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.