Case 1401716/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Kelly v Annettes Domicilary Care Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1401716/2019
- Decision date
- 4 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goraj Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Kelly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs R Kelly's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. Employment Judge Goraj recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The judgment also records that the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, in her letter received on 15 May 2019, why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal therefore struck out that complaint. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected and would proceed to a telephone case management hearing.
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 the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant had not given an acceptable reason in her letter received on 15 May 2019 for the claim not to be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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.