Case 1403075/2020 · Employment Tribunal

Ms G White v Redlynch Agricultural Engineering Limited — 2020

Case reference: 1403075/2020
Decision date: 20 July 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Bax Dated

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms G White

Respondent

Redlynch Agricultural Engineering Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It found that Ms G White had been employed by Redlynch Agricultural Engineering Limited for less than two years, so she did not satisfy the qualifying service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.

On 6 July 2020, the claimant was given until 13 July 2020 to explain why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out. The tribunal recorded that she did not provide any, or any acceptable, reason. It therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment 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 struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not therefore meet the qualifying service requirement in section 108 ERA 1996. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected and were not decided in this judgment.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.