Case 1803602/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Hunte v R1. Jet2.com Limited R2. JMC Recruitment Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1803602/2019
- Decision date
- 7 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Hunte
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's Employment Rights Act complaint of unfair dismissal. It said Miss E Hunte did not have two years' employment with either Jet2.com Limited or JMC Recruitment Limited, and that she could not bring an unfair dismissal claim unless an exception applied.
After the claimant was asked to show cause by a letter requiring a response by 23 July 2019, she did not provide reasons establishing an exception. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out under Rule 37.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant's Equality Act complaints remained listed for a case management hearing on 28 August 2019, which she was required to attend. The tribunal noted that claims could be dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 if parties do not attend hearings.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the Employment Rights Act complaint of unfair dismissal because the claimant did not have two years' employment with either respondent and had not provided reasons establishing an exception after being asked to show cause by 23 July 2019. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37
- Rule 47
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.