Case 1401930/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Franczak v Allied Care Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401930/2020
- Decision date
- 26 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Christensen Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Franczak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A Franczak's claim of (constructive) unfair dismissal under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. Employment Judge Christensen recorded that there was no reasonable prospect of the claim succeeding because the claimant did not have two years' service. The judgment does not record any award, because the claim failed at this preliminary stage.
The tribunal also dismissed the claimant's application to amend her case to add causes of action based on s.18 Equality Act pregnancy discrimination and s.99 Employment Rights Act. The amendment decision was said to be in accordance with Selkent Bus Company v Moore. No discrimination claim was determined on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claim of (constructive) unfair dismissal under s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' service. The claimant's application to amend to add pregnancy discrimination under s.18 Equality Act and a s.99 Employment Rights Act cause of action was also dismissed under Selkent Bus Company v Moore. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Selkent Bus Company v Moore
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.