Case 1400307/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Vacher v Holdsworth Hotels — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400307/2022
- Decision date
- 25 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Vacher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal against Holdsworth Hotels on the papers. By letter dated 8 March 2022, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, and had failed to make representations in writing or otherwise sufficient representations, why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, and that the remaining claim stayed listed for hearing on 2 November 2022.
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 because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not make acceptable written representations or request a hearing after the Tribunal's letter dated 8 March 2022. | 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.