Case 1402198/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Hudd v Cmostores.com Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402198/2022
- Decision date
- 28 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Hudd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss M Hudd brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against CMOstores.com. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires 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 that statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that the Claimant was not entitled to pursue the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment records that she was given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but she did not provide an acceptable reason.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment also states that the Claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the Claimant had been employed for less than two years, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 ERA 1996. She was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but gave no acceptable reason. The judgment states that the Claimant's other complaints were not affected. | 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.