Case 2301191/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Widdrington v Maple Dental Practice and 3 others — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301191/2021
- Decision date
- 27 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mrs E Widdrington
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Maple Dental Practice and the named respondents. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to present an unfair dismissal complaint, and it found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also noted that she had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore 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 struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had been employed for less than two years and was not entitled to bring the complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. It also found that she had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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.