Case 1804387/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Mair v Dr Marcus Julier, Dr Manjit Purewal, Dr Maria Carmen Ruiz-Huertas and Dr Nadia Anderson, a partnership trading as North Leeds Medical Practice — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804387/2021
- Decision date
- 8 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Public
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss D Mair, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Dr Marcus Julier, Dr Manjit Purewal, Dr Maria Carmen Ruiz-Huertas and Dr Nadia Anderson, trading as North Leeds Medical Practice. The tribunal held that the complaint could not proceed because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim, and the claimant had worked for less than two years.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not provide an acceptable reason. For that reason, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out.
The judgment expressly states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary award was made.
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 less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 ERA 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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.