Case 1400819/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss F Rodgett v Kingsbridge Risk Solutions Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400819/2022
- Decision date
- 6 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss F Rodgett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss F Rodgett brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Kingsbridge Risk Solutions Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' continuous service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal found that she was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also noted that, after the Tribunal's letter of 20 April 2022, the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also recorded that the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being invited to do so after the Tribunal's letter dated 20 April 2022, 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.
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.