Case 2302816/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Goodyer v The Hengist Village Bar and Dining Rooms Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302816/2022
- Decision date
- 21 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Goodyer
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 10 October 2022, the tribunal gave Ms C Goodyer an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why her unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The reason identified was that she 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 her from the qualifying period. Ms Goodyer did not make representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. The judgment does not determine the merits of any dismissal issue; it records only that the claim could not proceed because the qualifying service requirement was not shown to be met. The tribunal noted that notice of hearing would be issued in due course for the claimant's remaining claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to show why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out because she did not appear to have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 ERA 1996 or any exceptional circumstances exempting her from that requirement. The claimant did not make written representations or any sufficient representations, and did not request 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.