Case 1601999/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Stewart v Nisbets plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601999/2020
- Decision date
- 25 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Ms P Stewart's continuous period of employment with Nisbets PLC began on 1 March 2019 and ended on 28 August 2020. On that basis, it held that she did not have sufficient continuity of service for the purposes of sections 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Because the continuity requirement was not met, the tribunal dismissed her unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 to 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed her claim for a redundancy payment. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service for the purposes of sections 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The employment period was found to run from 1 March 2019 to 28 August 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed for the same reason: the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service for entitlement to a redundancy payment under section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- sections 108 and 155 Employment Rights Act 1996
- sections 94 to 98 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.