Case 1800099/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Haywood & Padgett Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800099/2020
- Decision date
- 5 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss A Geslere, was employed by Haywood & Padgett Ltd for 15 weeks. The tribunal noted that the right not to be unfairly dismissed under the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not apply unless an employee has at least two years' continuous employment ending with the effective date of termination, and that none of the statutory exceptions applied on this claim.
At a case management hearing on 2 March 2020, the claimant accepted that she did not have sufficient length of service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint and that, in those circumstances, the complaint would have to be dismissed because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear it. The judgment therefore dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint without considering its merits. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was pursuing a harassment complaint related to age, and that this judgment did not affect that claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had only 15 weeks' service and therefore did not meet the two-year qualifying period under section 108 ERA 1996; the judgment records that no exception applied and that the claimant accepted this at a case management hearing on 2 March 2020. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Rights Act 1996 section 108
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.