Case 1406365/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Mighten v Sue Powell — 2021
- Case reference
- 1406365/2020
- Decision date
- 13 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Mighten
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a single complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Miss P Mighten against Sue Powell. By letter dated 8 February 2021, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out, because s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint and the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should continue. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under rule 37. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the complaint because s.108 ERA 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint and the claimant was employed for less than two years. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- s.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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.