Case 1802050/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Banach v Clipper Logistics plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 1802050/2020
- Decision date
- 27 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Banach
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment. It recorded that Miss A Banach had complained, among other matters, of unfair dismissal and had sought a redundancy payment, but the judgment was limited to a preliminary issue of length of service.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by Clipper Logistics Plc for less than two years. It cited section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as requiring not less than two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and section 155 of the same Act as requiring the same period of service to qualify for a redundancy payment.
The claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why those complaints should not be struck out, but gave no reason. On that basis, the tribunal held that she was not entitled to bring those complaints and struck them out. The judgment states that the claimant's separate holiday pay complaint was not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so did not qualify for a redundancy payment under s.155 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.155 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.