Case 1405109/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs L O'Dwyer v Defence Equipment & Support (de&s) A Bespoke Trading Entity Of The Ministry Of Defence — 2019

Case reference: 1405109/2018
Decision date: 4 January 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Livesey Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs L O'Dwyer

Respondent

Defence Equipment & Support (de&s) A Bespoke Trading Entity Of The Ministry Of Defence

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It found that Mrs O'Dwyer had been employed by Defence Equipment & Support for less than two years, so she did not satisfy the qualifying service requirement in section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for bringing an unfair dismissal claim.

The tribunal recorded that the Claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but she did not give an acceptable reason. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the Claimant's 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 Claimant had less than two years' service and therefore could not bring the claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment notes that the Claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.