Case 1405280/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Capewell v Hays Travel — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405280/2020
- Decision date
- 28 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Capewell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Capewell brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Hays Travel. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal had sent a letter dated 25 January 2021 giving the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The claimant did not make representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims were unaffected by this decision, but it does not determine them. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
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 section 108 ERA 1996 requires at least two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The tribunal had previously invited representations by letter dated 25 January 2021, but the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | 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.