Case 1800156/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Jones v Cam Pub Co Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800156/2020
- Decision date
- 7 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss N Jones brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Cam Pub Co Limited. The tribunal treated the matter as a strike out judgment on the basis of length of service, and noted that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It therefore held that she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but failed to provide an acceptable reason.
On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, but they were not determined in this judgment.
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, so she was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. | 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.