Case 2305333/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Reid v Santander Consumer Finance — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305333/2024
- Decision date
- 2 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Reid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 26 July 2024, the Tribunal gave Miss A Reid an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why her unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The Tribunal said the claim appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success because the Claimant did not have two years' service at the time of dismissal, and it appeared that the specific circumstances allowing an unfair dismissal complaint to be brought with less than two years' service did not apply.
The Claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the Claimant's remaining complaint was not affected by this decision and would be listed for a hearing in due course.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the Tribunal found the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success because the Claimant did not have two years' service and no apparent exception applied. The Claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.