Case 2304785/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Kindness v Blank Brixton Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2304785/2021
- Decision date
- 5 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Kindness
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Miss C Kindness's unfair dismissal complaint against Blank Brixton Ltd. It had written to the claimant on 01 October 2021 giving her an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that she did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, no exceptional circumstances were identified to disapply that requirement, and the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Wright ordered that the unfair dismissal complaint be struck out on 05 April 2022. No remedy was assessed or awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint after noting that the claimant did not have two years' qualifying service under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, no exceptional circumstances were identified to exempt the service requirement, and the claim had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- strike out for non-pursuit
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.