Case 2301819/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Rann v Shangri-La Hotels PTE Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301819/2021
- Decision date
- 16 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Rann
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 2 July 2021, the tribunal gave Miss S Rann an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why her unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The tribunal identified the issue as whether she had the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or any exceptional circumstances that would exempt her from that qualifying period.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Wright struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims continue. No remedy was awarded in this judgment, and no other claim was finally determined in the extracted text.
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 did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and had not made sufficient written representations or requested a hearing after the letter dated 2 July 2021. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims continue. | 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.