Case 1806643/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Tolley v Tanglewood Care Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806643/2022
- Decision date
- 25 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Tolley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that Miss A Tolley's complaints of unfair dismissal and entitlement to a redundancy payment should be struck out. It found that both rights require at least two years' service, and that the claimant had been employed by Tanglewood Care Services Ltd for less than two years.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. Because both complaints depended on the same service requirement, the tribunal decided it was in the interests of justice to strike out both claims.
The judgment states that the claimant's separate complaint of wrongful dismissal was unaffected and would proceed to a hearing on 13 April 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because entitlement to a redundancy payment also required not less than two years' service, which the claimant did not have. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.