Case 1400092/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Johns v Fresh Local and Wild — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400092/2022
- Decision date
- 8 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Johns
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Johns brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Fresh Local and Wild. The tribunal 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. It also recorded that she had been given the opportunity to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but had failed to do so.
The result was that the unfair dismissal complaint was 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 | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service, found the claimant had worked for less than two years, and struck out the unfair dismissal complaint after she did not provide 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.