Case 1804603/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Sagar v Shine Bright Daycare and Out of School Club — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804603/2022
- Decision date
- 28 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Sagar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss H Sagar, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Shine Bright Daycare and Out of School Club. Employment Judge Bright held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the claimant was not entitled to bring that complaint, the tribunal struck it out. The judgment records that 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 also states that the claimant's other complaints 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 | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring such a complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, 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.