Case 1400676/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Whatton v Bournemouth University — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400676/2019
- Decision date
- 15 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harper MBE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Whatton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R Whatton brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Bournemouth University. Employment Judge Harper MBE recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to present an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment also records that the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but failed to give an acceptable reason.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment expressly 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 struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The judgment states that the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.