Case 2305082/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Searle, Miss A Schmidt-lanz & Miss A Chambers v The Net-a-Porter Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305082/2023
- Decision date
- 1 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Searle, Miss A Schmidt-lanz & Miss A Chambers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEach claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against The Net-a-Porter Group Ltd. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that each claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimants were not entitled to bring these proceedings. It also recorded that each claimant failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The judgment therefore struck out each claimant's unfair dismissal claim. No monetary remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ms A Searle's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because she had less than two years' service and no acceptable reason was given why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Miss A Schmidt-lanz's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because she had less than two years' service and no acceptable reason was given why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Miss A Chambers's unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because she had less than two years' service and no acceptable reason was given why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.