Case 1800352/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Powell v Mobili Office Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800352/2020
- Decision date
- 28 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Powell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a telephone preliminary hearing in Sheffield on 10 August 2020, Employment Judge Brain found that Miss D Powell had been employed by Mobili Office Limited from 26 February 2018 to 31 December 2019. Because that period was less than two years, the claimant did not have the necessary qualifying service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that complaint was dismissed.
The tribunal also considered the claimant's complaints that she had been constructively dismissed for making a protected disclosure and/or for bringing to the respondent's attention circumstances connected with work which she reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health and safety. It treated those as automatic unfair dismissal complaints, but dismissed them because they had no reasonable prospect of success and because there was no evidence that the respondent had acted in fundamental breach of contract because of any protected disclosure or health and safety disclosure made in late November 2018. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was employed from 26 February 2018 to 31 December 2019 and therefore did not have the qualifying service needed to pursue an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under s.94 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's complaints that she had been constructively dismissed for making a protected disclosure and/or for raising health and safety concerns. It said those automatic unfair dismissal complaints had no reasonable prospect of success because there was no evidence of a fundamental breach of contract caused by any protected disclosure or health and safety disclosure made in late November 2018. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.94 ERA 1996
- two years' qualifying service requirement
- no reasonable prospect of success
- fundamental breach of the employment contract
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.