Case 1406406/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Hancock v Albert Grahame Winter (Vogue Lifestyle) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1406406/2023
- Decision date
- 12 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Hancock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's redundancy payment claim. It recorded that Miss J Hancock sought a redundancy payment from Albert Grahame Winter (Vogue Lifestyle). The tribunal found that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevents an employee from having a right to a redundancy payment unless they have been employed for two years or more.
On the facts found, the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The tribunal therefore concluded that she did not have the right to a redundancy payment. It also noted that the claimant had been given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided.
The redundancy payment claim was accordingly struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The tribunal struck out the redundancy payment claim because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore did not have the right to a redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.155 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.