Case 2300728/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Howard v Arvato Bertelsmann — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300728/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nash
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Howard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint only. By letter dated 13 March 2023, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why that complaint should not be struck out.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had not made written representations, had not made sufficient representations, and had not requested a hearing. It therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The reason given was that the claimant lacked the requisite service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and had not provided any exceptional basis for an exception to the two-year service rule. The reasons also note that the claimant's remaining claim or claims would continue and that a hearing notice would be issued in due course.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant lacked the requisite service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and had not identified any exceptional scenario taking the claim outside the two-year service rule. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- two-year service rule
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.