Case 1600399/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Carter v Maritime and Coastguard Agency — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600399/2022
- Decision date
- 7 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Carter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined only the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal in this judgment. It recorded that Miss L Carter complained of unfair dismissal against the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring that complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It further recorded that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The judgment expressly states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states only that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment, but does not identify or determine them. | 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.