Case 2213434/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Carryl v London Borough of Islington — 2023
- Case reference
- 2213434/2023
- Decision date
- 28 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Carryl
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained of unfair dismissal. The tribunal struck out that complaint on the basis that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been given the opportunity to explain why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out, but had not done so. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaint of wrongful dismissal, described as breach of contract, was not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment expressly states that the claimant's other complaint of wrongful dismissal (breach of contract) is not affected by this judgment, so it has not been treated as adjudicated here. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.