Case 2304513/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Tofi v Evans Turner (Finishes) Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304513/2023
- Decision date
- 30 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Tofi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint. It noted that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years’ service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and the claimant’s own case was that her employment ran from 21 March 2022 to 30 June 2023, amounting to just over 1 year and 3 months.
The tribunal wrote to the claimant on 12 December 2023 inviting her to explain why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out because she appeared to have less than two years’ service. In her response dated 25 December 2023, she explained why she considered her treatment to be unfair, but she did not identify any circumstances that would disapply the two-year qualifying period.
The tribunal found that the claimant had insufficient service to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal. It held that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The judgment records that the claimant’s complaint of sex discrimination/harassment continues.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had insufficient service under section 108 ERA 1996; the claim form stated employment from 21 March 2022 to 30 June 2023, which was just over 1 year and 3 months, and no exception to the two-year service requirement was identified. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.