Case 1807162/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Hinshelwood v Pebbles Care Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1807162/2019
- Decision date
- 20 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rogerson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Hinshelwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Miss L Hinshelwood's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed by Pebbles Care Limited for less than two years.
The judgment records that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not give an acceptable reason. The complaint was therefore struck out under rule 37.
The tribunal also stated that the claimant's claim for notice pay was not affected by 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 under rule 37 because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and therefore was not entitled to bring the complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that the claimant's claim for notice pay was not affected. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rule 37
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.