Case 1402455/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs M Holmes v CW (No.1) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1402455/2021
- Decision date
- 13 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs M Holmes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint and held that she was not entitled to bring it because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service. The tribunal found that Mrs M Holmes had been employed by CW (NO.1) Limited for less than two years.
Because the qualifying service requirement was not met, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The reasons record that the claimant was given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not do so.
The judgment is limited to the unfair dismissal complaint and expressly states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by the decision. No monetary 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 held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, found the claimant had less than two years' service, and struck out the complaint. The judgment states 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.