Case 2301950/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Davis v Medacs Healthcare plc PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2019
- Case reference
- 2301950/2018
- Decision date
- 5 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Hyde
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Davis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 15 April 2019, Employment Judge C Hyde considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claim form had been presented on 23 May 2018 and showed employment starting on 12 August 2017. The claimant's own material also referred to leaving work and, in the body of the claim, to constructive dismissal, while the respondent's grounds of resistance said she resigned with effect from 28 May 2018.
The tribunal had previously written to the claimant on 26 June 2018 explaining that section 108 ERA 1996 generally requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim, and inviting her to explain why that part of the claim should not be struck out. No basis was identified that would take the claim outside the qualifying period. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint forthwith. The judgment stated that this decision did not affect the claimant's race discrimination, unlawful deduction of wages, or unpaid holiday pay complaints.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out forthwith under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because the claimant appeared to have less than two years' service and had not shown any exception to the qualifying period under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.108 ERA 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.