Case 2302017/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss O Ayinde v Lisa Lucas and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302017/2021
- Decision date
- 14 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McLaren
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss O Ayinde
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. By letter dated 15 June 2021, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The reason given was that the claimant did not appear to have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and no exceptional circumstances were identified that would exempt the qualifying period.
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to make written representations, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment states that it should be read alongside the judgment of Legal Officer Goatham dated 14 October 2022, and that the claimant's remaining claims were to continue to the hearing listed for 18 to 21 December 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the complaint because the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or any exceptional circumstances exempting the qualifying period, and did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- qualifying two years' service
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.