Case 1401028/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Grace v Bristol Pharma Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1401028/2020
- Decision date
- 18 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Grace
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss A Grace, brought claims for unfair dismissal and 'Other Payments' against Bristol Pharma Limited. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. After the tribunal wrote on 5 March 2020 to say the claim did not appear to be maintainable and invited written reasons by 12 March 2020, the claimant did not provide an acceptable response.
The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim. It also struck out the 'Other Payments' claim after directing the claimant on 21 April 2020 to set out what the claim was and provide details, and after a further letter on 19 May 2020 warning that strike out was being considered if she did not respond by 26 May 2020. The claimant did not respond to either communication. The tribunal concluded that she was not actively pursuing the claim and had failed to comply with tribunal orders.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason in response to the tribunal's warning letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The tribunal treated this as a claim for 'Other Payments'; the claimant did not respond to orders requiring her to explain the claim and was found not to be actively pursuing it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.