Case 2205091/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2020
- Case reference
- 2205091/2019
- Decision date
- 11 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing on 11 August 2020 before Employment Judge Nicolle, the Tribunal considered Ms T Harrison's unfair dismissal claim against University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The judgment records that, as at 22 May 2019, the effective date of termination of what the Claimant said was a contract of employment, she did not have the two years' qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal also found that the unfair dismissal claim was not presented within the three-month period beginning with the effective date of termination, and that the Tribunal was not satisfied that it had been presented within such further period as might be reasonable where it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time under section 111(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On those bases, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The unfair dismissal claim was accordingly dismissed. The judgment records no monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that, as at the effective date of termination on 22 May 2019, the Claimant did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 ERA 1996, and that the claim was also out of time under section 111(2) ERA 1996. The claim was therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111(2) 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.