Case 1802103/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Peart v Harvey Kennedy-Pitt — 2021
- Case reference
- 1802103/2021
- Decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Peart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal. The tribunal noted that, on the material before it, there was no explanation of any basis on which it might have jurisdiction to hear an ordinary unfair dismissal claim where two years' service is required, unless dismissal was said to be for an automatically unfair reason. No such reason recognised in the Employment Rights Act 1996 had been raised.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The claim of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment also notes that the claimant's complaint of breach of contract would proceed. It further states that although the claimant referred to discrimination in representations, that was not a complaint brought in these proceedings.
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 not explained any basis on which it had jurisdiction to hear an ordinary unfair dismissal claim where two years' service is required, and no automatically unfair reason recognised in the Employment Rights Act 1996 had been raised. | Struck out | — | — |
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.