Case 1404022/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Amy Guest v Medicraft Ltd. — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404022/2021
- Decision date
- 16 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Le Grys
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Amy Guest
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol by video on 8 and 9 June 2022 before Employment Judge Le Grys. The judgment records that the respondent's name was amended to Medicraft Ltd, and that there was no attendance or representation for the respondent.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out under Rule 27. The tribunal held that she had less than two years' qualifying service, so she did not satisfy the service requirement in s.108 ERA 1996.
The claimant's breach of contract claim for notice pay and her claim for unauthorised deductions from wages were both struck out under Rule 37. The tribunal found that those claims constituted an abuse of process because they were identical to the claimant's County Court claim dated 6 August 2021, case number 224MC292. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 27 because the claimant had less than two years' qualifying service, as required by s.108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay struck out under Rule 37 as an abuse of process on the basis of res judicata; the tribunal said it was identical to the claimant's County Court claim dated 6 August 2021 (224MC292). | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under Rule 37 as an abuse of process on the basis of res judicata; the tribunal said it was identical to the claimant's County Court claim dated 6 August 2021 (224MC292). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 27
- s.108 ERA 1996
- Rule 37
- res judicata
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.