Case 1400450/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Harrison v HF Trust Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1400450/2023
- Decision date
- 7 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Youngs Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Harrison
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was conducted by telephone before Employment Judge Youngs on 14 September 2023. The Claimant, Mrs D Harrison, did not attend. The Respondent was represented by Miss C Scarborough, counsel. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal held that there was no reasonable prospect of the Claimant being found to have the two years' continuous service as an employee required to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. On that basis, the unfair dismissal claim could not proceed.
The tribunal also recorded that there was no particularised claim capable of being brought in the absence of the required continuous service, and that the Claimant had not provided details of any such claim despite having previously been given the opportunity to do so by the Employment Tribunal. The judgment then states that the Claimant's claim was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found there was no reasonable prospect of the Claimant establishing the two years' continuous service required to bring an unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal stated that there was no particularised claim in the absence of two or more years' continuous service and that the Claimant had not provided details of any such claim despite having been given the opportunity to do so. | Struck out | — | — |
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.