Case 2203713/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Chinkuli v One Housing Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203713/2020
- Decision date
- 3 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Walker Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Chinkuli
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave the claimant notice under Rule 27 that it was considering striking out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service. The claimant said she was also bringing discrimination and constructive dismissal claims, and argued that a constructive dismissal claim could be brought without the two-year qualifying period.
Employment Judge Walker held that this did not amount to an exception to the usual qualifying service requirement. The unfair dismissal claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was found to have no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out under Rule 37. The judgment states that the remaining complaints in the claim were to proceed to a hearing, but it does not determine them in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 37 because the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service and the tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 27
- Rule 37
- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- two years' qualifying service
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.