Case 1800182/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Bienko v Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800182/2023
- Decision date
- 17 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Bienko
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Bienko complained that she had been unfairly dismissed by Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster). The Tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' employment before a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal complaint, subject to exceptions for certain automatically unfair dismissal complaints, and that none of those exceptions seemed to apply.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. It had written to the claimant giving her an opportunity to explain why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out for that reason, but she had not done so. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected, and no remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment; only the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.