Case 1600953/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Ockenden-White v Betsi Cadwaldr University Health Board HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1600953/2019
- Decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Ms L Bishop, Ms K. Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Ockenden-White
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms L Ockenden-White had been continuously employed by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board for less than two years ending with the effective date of termination on 31 March 2019. Because the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal was not met, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal also rejected the claim that, as a fixed term employee, the claimant had been treated less favourably than a permanent employee when she was dismissed. That claim was dismissed.
The tribunal recorded that the respondent had failed to provide written employment particulars, but said that, because the claimant did not succeed on either claim, she was not entitled to an award. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had been continuously employed for less than two years ending with the effective date of termination on 31 March 2019, so the unfair dismissal jurisdictional qualifying period was not met. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Fixed-term employee regulations | The claim that the claimant, as a fixed term employee, was treated less favourably than a permanent employee when she was dismissed failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.