Case 1804832/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Bacheva v Mercure Hotel — 2024
- Case reference
- 1804832/2023
- Decision date
- 3 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Bacheva
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Bacheva brought claims for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment against Mercure Hotel. The tribunal found that she had been employed for less than two years. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that section 155 of the same Act requires two years' service to qualify for a redundancy payment. On that basis, the tribunal held that she had no entitlement to either claim.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to provide an acceptable reason why the claims should not be struck out for those reasons, but had not done so. The judgment therefore states that the claim was struck out. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore had no entitlement to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The tribunal found the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore had no entitlement to a redundancy payment under section 155 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.155 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.