Case 2300645/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Bean v YES Outdoors — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300645/2023
- Decision date
- 12 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Bean
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms R Bean, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against YES Outdoors. The tribunal dealt with the matter as a strike-out issue and found that the statutory qualifying period applied.
It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. On the facts found, the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the claimant did not meet the qualifying service requirement, the tribunal concluded that she was not entitled to pursue the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite having the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claimant had less than two years' service and that no acceptable reason had been given why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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.