Case 2301073/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Deborah Sewell v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301073/2023
- Decision date
- 17 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flanagan
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Deborah Sewell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal substituted the Respondent's details from Sainsbury's Plc to Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd, recording that the Claimant's employer was Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd.
The Claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim was struck out. The tribunal stated that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that the Claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The Claimant's 'other type of claim' was also struck out, with the tribunal stating that it disclosed no reasonable prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment describes the claim as constructive unfair dismissal and states it was struck out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and the Claimant had less than two years' service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment describes this as an 'other type of claim' and states it was struck out as disclosing no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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.