Case 1803390/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Budding v Boots UK Limited & Others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1803390/2020
- Decision date
- 10 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Budding
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike-out judgment in case 1803390/2020 concerning Miss M Budding and Boots UK Limited & Others. The tribunal recorded that the complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out under rule 37. The reason given was that the claimant was employed for less than two years.
The reasons state that, by a letter dated 2 July 2020, the tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The judgment does not record any response from the claimant before the strike-out order was made.
The judgment does not determine the claimant's remaining claims, which were still listed for hearing on 3 September 2020. No monetary award was made in this decision.
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 under rule 37. The reasons state that the claimant had been employed for less than two years and had been given an opportunity by letter dated 2 July 2020 to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The remaining claims were still listed for hearing on 3 September 2020. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.