Case 1803531/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person v Ms S Ellison, Legal Executive (Banner Jones Solicitors) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803531/2019
- Decision date
- 22 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little Representation
- Venue
- Sheffield
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Sheffield on 19 August 2019, before Employment Judge Little, dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite having the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.
The judgment stated that the claimant's complaints of sex discrimination and disability discrimination were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service, so was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996; the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 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.