Case 1811003/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Green (claimant’s partner) v Databowl Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1811003/2018
- Decision date
- 14 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Little REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Green (claimant’s partner)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant accepted that he had not completed two years' continuous service with Databowl Limited; the reasons state that he had been employed for approximately 18 months. On that basis, the tribunal held that the ordinary unfair dismissal jurisdiction under section 94 ERA 1996 was not available because section 108 ERA 1996 requires at least two years' continuous employment ending with the effective date of termination.
The judgment therefore struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal on ordinary principles only. It also recorded that the case could still proceed in relation to the complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A ERA 1996, which was not removed by the two-year service requirement. No remedy was determined in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal on ordinary principles only was struck out. The claimant accepted that he did not have two years' continuous service with the respondent, and the tribunal held that section 108 ERA 1996 removed jurisdiction under section 94. The reasons record that the separate complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A ERA 1996 was not struck out and could proceed. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 1996
- s.103A 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.