Case 1804895/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Begum v Boots Opticians Recruitment Team — 2021
- Case reference
- 1804895/2021
- Decision date
- 23 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Begum
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R Begum brought complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract against Boots Opticians Recruitment Team. The tribunal struck out the claim. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so she was not entitled to pursue that complaint.
On the breach of contract complaint, the tribunal referred to article 3(c) of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994 and found that there was no contract of employment in existence on termination from which the claim could have arisen. It also noted that the claimant had already been paid the equivalent of one week's notice. The tribunal said the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being invited to do so by letter dated 13 October 2021, why the complaints should not be struck out, had not responded to the tribunal's letter dated 29 October 2021, and that the claim was not being actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Article 3(c) Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
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.