Case 1404631/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Newton Ms M Ewbank Ms J Krzyzanowska v David Paul Warnock — 2022
- Case reference
- 1404631/2021
- Decision date
- 28 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Newton Ms M Ewbank Ms J Krzyzanowska
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Dawson dealt with unfair dismissal complaints brought by Ms C Newton, Ms M Ewbank and Ms J Krzyzanowska against David Paul Warnock. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and found that each claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimants were not entitled to bring unfair dismissal complaints and struck those complaints out. The reasons also record that the claimants were given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but they did not provide an acceptable reason.
The judgment states that the claimants' other complaints were not affected by this decision. The judgment was sent to the parties on 28 June 2022 and dated 17 June 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimants had been employed for less than two years and were therefore not entitled to bring unfair dismissal complaints; the tribunal also found they had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaints 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.