Case 1403720/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Matthews v BUPA Care Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403720/2023
- Decision date
- 21 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Matthews brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Bupa Care Services. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for such a complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint on that basis, the tribunal struck out the complaint. The reasons record that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary award was made.
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 and that the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.