Case 2200784/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Megon Mitchell v Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200784/2024
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Klimov Date
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms Megon Mitchell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Megon Mitchell, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals and two individual respondents. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed by respondent 1 for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also found that she had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that it does not affect the other complaints in the claim, which were to proceed to a final hearing listed for 1 to 4 April 2025.
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 with respondent 1 and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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.