Case 2300537/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Fok-Seang v Cygnet Health Care Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300537/2022
- Decision date
- 27 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Fok-Seang
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 9 March 2022 to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, there were no identified exceptional circumstances providing an exemption to that requirement, and the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim and cancelled the hearing that had been listed for 6 May 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claim because the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under s.108 ERA 1996 and had not actively pursued it. Although the gov.uk listing also references redundancy, the reasons do not expressly address a redundancy pay claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.