Case 2200920/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Schumann For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200920/2019
- Decision date
- 4 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O Segal QC
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms Schumann For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant had been dismissed, when the effective date of termination was, and whether she had two years' continuous employment for an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from Kevin Murtagh for the respondent. It recorded that the claimant began working for the respondent in 2012, but that the relevant continuous employment issue turned on the period before 8 December 2016, during which the tribunal found she was not working.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant underwent knee surgery in Poland in October 2018 and that, after she told MZ she might need surgery, MZ suggested she resign and return once recovered. The tribunal found that Mr Murtagh then drafted a dismissal letter on the basis of ill health and the belief that the claimant lacked two years' service. The claimant sent a translated medical summary to the respondent and later appealed the dismissal, but the appeal was heard by Mr Murtagh and rejected.
On the effective date of termination, the tribunal applied Gisda Cyf v Barratt and held that the claimant had a reasonable opportunity to discover the contents of the dismissal letter attached to the 22 November 2018 email by no later than 28 November 2018. It then applied s.86(1)(a) ERA 1996 and extended the effective date of termination by one week to 5 December 2018. On that basis, the claimant had a few days less than two years' continuous employment and the unfair dismissal claim therefore failed for lack of jurisdiction.
The judgment notes that the claimant said she was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act, but the tribunal was not asked to decide any disability claim. It also records that there was an outstanding breach of contract claim, and that the respondent appeared to accept the claimant should be paid for the period from the last date she had been paid up to 20 December 2018, being the end of her four-week contractual notice period after receipt of the 22 November email.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment at the effective date of termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Gisda Cyf v Barratt reasonable opportunity test
- s.86(1)(a) ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 1996
- Harper v Virgin Net Ltd
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.