Case 2200983/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Gorton v Priory Education Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200983/2021
- Decision date
- 5 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McKenna Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Gorton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge McKenna, held remotely by CVP on 5 August 2021. The claimant, Mrs C Gorton, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. The tribunal recorded that the parties did not object to the remote hearing.
The only substantive issue recorded in the written judgment was whether the claimant had two years' continuity of employment with the respondent. The tribunal found that she did not have the required two years' continuity under sections 94 and 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Because that statutory qualifying period was not met, the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award or any separate remedy findings.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary hearing judgment; the tribunal held the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment under sections 94 and 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.108 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.