Case 1601130/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Howell v SSCL Vetting and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601130/2024
- Decision date
- 9 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss R Howell
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 19 June 2024, the tribunal gave Miss R Howell an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why her unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The judgment records that the complaint was one of unfair dismissal brought against SSCL Vetting and HMP Nottingham.
The tribunal found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring the complaint. It also found that she had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was accordingly struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.