Case 1800462/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Ms M Wilkinson v Medivet Swanland 24 hr — 2023

Case reference: 1800462/2023
Decision date: 14 March 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cox Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms M Wilkinson

Respondent

Medivet Swanland 24 hr

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dealt with the Claimant's unfair dismissal complaint only. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and that Ms Wilkinson had been employed by Medivet Swanland 24 hr for less than two years.

Because the service requirement was not met, the Claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal also recorded that the Claimant did not give any reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.

The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It also stated that the rest of the claim was not affected by 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 been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring the complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment says the Claimant did not give any reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment states that the rest of the claim is not affected by this Judgment.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.