Case 1403126/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Teague – 1403126/2024 Miss C Timmins – 1403127/2024 v Paul Casey — 2025
- Case reference
- 1403126/2024
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Teague – 1403126/2024 Miss C Timmins – 1403127/2024
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants, Miss M Teague and Miss C Timmins, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Paul Casey. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that both claimants had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that they were not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimants failed to provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It expressly stated that the claimants' 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 claimants had less than two years' service and were therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimants did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.