Case 2301634/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E S K Thandi v Stratford & Park HR and Consultancy Firm and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301634/2022
- Decision date
- 12 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss E S K Thandi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 18 June 2022, the Tribunal gave Miss Thandi an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why her unfair dismissal and redundancy payment complaints should not be struck out. The stated reason was that she did not have the qualifying two years' service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and there were no exceptional circumstances identified that would exempt her from the qualifying service period.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claims continue, but it does not determine them in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after the Tribunal's letter dated 18 June 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out on the same basis as the unfair dismissal complaint: no qualifying two years' service under section 108 ERA 1996, and no sufficient representations or request for a hearing. | 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.