Case 1400641/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Megan Downs v AND Sitel (UK) Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400641/2019
- Decision date
- 31 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Megan Downs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Megan Downs brought proceedings against Sitel (UK) Limited, including a claim that she had been unfairly dismissed. In a judgment held in chambers at Plymouth on 31 July 2019, Employment Judge N J Roper recorded that the claimant did not have sufficient qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim. The judgment did not determine the merits of dismissal; it disposed of the claim on the threshold issue of qualifying service. The judgment expressly stated that this ruling did not affect the claimant’s remaining disability discrimination claims, which were left to continue separately.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the claimant had insufficient qualifying service to pursue an unfair dismissal claim under section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that this claim was struck out and that this did not affect the remaining disability discrimination claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108(1) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.