Case 2302427/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Dawson v Carisa Radiators Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302427/2021
- Decision date
- 28 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Dawson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint at this stage. By letter dated 25 January 2022, it gave Miss K Dawson an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether that complaint should be struck out because it did not appear that she had the two years' qualifying service required to bring a claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and no exceptional circumstances were identified to waive that requirement.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claim or claims would be listed separately, with notification of listing to follow. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | By letter dated 25 January 2022, the tribunal invited representations or a hearing on whether the unfair dismissal complaint should be struck out because the claimant did not appear to have the two years' qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and no exceptional circumstances were identified to waive that requirement. The claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- two years service requirement
- strike out
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.