Case 2303049/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Connolly v Trentham Invest Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303049/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Perry Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Connolly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant complained that she was unfairly dismissed. The tribunal stated that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years' service to make an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity at a preliminary hearing, why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out only the unfair dismissal complaint. It states that the claimant's other complaints, including constructive dismissal and discrimination complaints, were not affected by this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Section 108 of the 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.