Case 1404936/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Paradise v Hanson Quarry Products Europe Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1404936/2018
- Decision date
- 8 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Paradise
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to bring such a claim, and found that Ms D Paradise had been employed by Hanson Quarry Products Europe Limited for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also found that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, she did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, so no findings were made in this judgment on any other claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 ERA 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.