Case 1401844/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Bedingfield v Investec Wealth and Investment Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401844/2021
- Decision date
- 22 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Bedingfield
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Bedingfield's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The tribunal found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. On that basis, it held that she was not entitled to bring the complaint.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given an opportunity to do so after the Tribunal's letter dated 14 August 2021 asking why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was accordingly struck out. It further notes that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by 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 the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 ERA 1996. The judgment also notes that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being invited to do so by the Tribunal's letter dated 14 August 2021. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. | 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.