Case 1401584/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Young v Cera Care Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1401584/2023
- Decision date
- 5 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Young
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A Young brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Cera Care. Employment Judge Livesey recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the claimant did not meet the qualifying service requirement, the tribunal held that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not given an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
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 claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | 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.