Case 1600472/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Humphrey v Hermes Parcelnet Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600472/2020
- Decision date
- 27 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Humphrey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. It had written to the claimant on 4 February 2020 giving her an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why that complaint should not be struck out.
The reason identified was that, under Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, claimants are not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless employed for two years or more, except in certain specific circumstances which did not seem to apply. The claimant failed to make written representations, made no sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The judgment did not determine the claimant's remaining claim or claims, which remained listed for hearing on 30 April 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out only the complaint of unfair dismissal. It stated that the claimant did not appear to meet the two-year service requirement under Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and had not made sufficient representations or requested a hearing. Other remaining claims were listed for a later hearing and were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the 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.