Case 1804055/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Bailey v Storefix Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1804055/2019
- Decision date
- 9 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Bailey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe only claim recorded in the judgment was unfair dismissal. On 6 August 2019 the tribunal wrote to Ms N Bailey explaining that, under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a claimant is not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint unless they have been employed for two years or more, subject to specific exceptions that did not appear to apply on the material before the tribunal.
The claimant was told that an Employment Judge proposed to strike out the claim unless she provided written reasons by 20 August 2019 explaining why it should not be struck out. No reasons were received. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 21 after the tribunal wrote on 6 August 2019 explaining that, under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, unfair dismissal claims generally require two years' service unless an exception applies. The claimant did not provide written reasons by 20 August 2019. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 21, Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.