Case 2300898/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Precious Ekwe v DNAFIT Life Sciences Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2300898/2021
- Decision date
- 15 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Precious Ekwe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Precious Ekwe brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against DNAFIT Life Sciences Limited. The tribunal found that she had been employed for less than two years, and therefore did not satisfy the service requirement for an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but the tribunal found that she did not provide an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was accordingly struck out. The judgment records that the claimant’s other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.