Case 1602273/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Ronald McDonald House Charities (UK) — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602273/2023
- Decision date
- 20 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 21 March 2024, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out because she did not have sufficient service. The claimant’s representative made written submissions, but the tribunal found them insufficient to avoid strike out.
The tribunal recorded that the claim appeared to be that the dismissal was discriminatory, which it said was not a claim of constructive unfair dismissal. It also stated that this was not a claim of automatic unfair dismissal. After discussing the matter with the claimant’s representative at the hearing, the representative understood that the matter was not a claim for unfair dismissal, but could be addressed under the Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim. It expressly stated that this did not affect the remaining claims, which would proceed to a final hearing.
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 did not have sufficient service. It recorded that the remaining claims would proceed to a final hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.