Case 1804940/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Spinks v Lucca Hull — 2020
- Case reference
- 1804940/2020
- Decision date
- 13 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Spinks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. It recorded that Miss D Spinks had been employed by Lucca Hull for less than two years, and therefore did not satisfy the statutory qualifying period for an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The reasons also noted that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out and did not request a hearing. The judgment therefore ordered that the unfair dismissal claim be struck out.
The tribunal directed that the remaining claim for unauthorised deductions from wages should proceed. No remedy was awarded in this judgment, and no findings were made on the merits of the wages claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.