Case 1400576/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Hall v Omnitude Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1400576/2020
- Decision date
- 25 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Miss N Hall complained of unfair dismissal against Omnitude Holdings LTD. It applied section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the claimant had not given an acceptable reason why that complaint should not be struck out.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out. The judgment expressly stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment. No remedy award was recorded in this part strike out judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant had less than two years' service and had not given an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the 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.