Case 1603091/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Edmunds v Everycare (Cardiff) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1603091/2023
- Decision date
- 16 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Edmunds
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint. By letter dated 25 February 2024, it gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether that complaint should be struck out because, under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a claimant is generally not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless they have been employed for two years or more, subject to limited exceptions that did not appear to apply here.
The claimant did not make sufficient representations and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that a claim of dismissal due to discrimination is not unfair dismissal, but this judgment records no separate discrimination determination.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal struck out the complaint after giving the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 25 February 2024 to make representations or request a hearing. It noted that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 generally requires two years' employment for an unfair dismissal claim, subject to exceptions which did not appear to apply; the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.