Case 1402756/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Taskis v Prysm Media Group Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1402756/2019
- Decision date
- 13 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Goraj Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Taskis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant, Mrs L Taskis, brought claims of unfair dismissal, including allegations connected with protected public interest disclosures, and sought a statutory redundancy payment. It had already dismissed her application for interim relief on 15 July 2019.
By letter dated 2 August 2019 the Tribunal told the claimant it प्रस्तावed to strike out the unfair dismissal claim unless she objected by 9 August 2019. The claimant did not reply. The Tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim because no acceptable reason was given for why it should not be struck out.
The statutory redundancy payment claim was also struck out. The Tribunal said section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service, and the claimant had worked for the respondent for less than two years, so she was not entitled to bring that claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was described as unfair dismissal, including allegations of dismissal for making protected public interest disclosures. It was struck out after the claimant did not respond to the Tribunal's 2 August 2019 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal held that the claimant was employed for less than two years and therefore was not entitled to bring a statutory redundancy payment claim under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.155 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.
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.