Case 2300593/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Wadi v Childsplay and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300593/2020
- Decision date
- 19 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss N Wadi
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 20 April 2022, the tribunal gave Miss N Wadi an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why her unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal said the apparent reason was that she did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and there did not appear to be any exceptional circumstance exempting the service requirement.
Miss N Wadi did not make written representations, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims continued, and it records no substantive determination or remedy on those claims in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the tribunal raised, by letter dated 20 April 2022, that the claimant did not appear to have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or any exceptional circumstances exempting the service requirement. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.