Case 2305869/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Adeyemo v Curious Children Day Nursery CORRECTED — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305869/2023
- Decision date
- 11 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Adeyemo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal and a separate complaint of breach of contract (notice pay). On the papers before it, the claimant's employment was stated to have run from 23 January 2023 to 23 August 2023.
Applying section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal noted that a claimant needs not less than two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It gave the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 17 April 2024 to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but the response did not identify any exception to that rule. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out.
The judgment records that the breach of contract claim for notice pay continues. It is a corrected judgment under Rule 69, correcting the claimant's name from Mrs A Adeyemo to Mrs R Adeyemo.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant's stated service was from 23/01/2023 to 23/08/2023, so section 108 ERA 1996 was not satisfied and the response to the tribunal's 17 April 2024 opportunity to make representations did not show that an exception applied. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 108 ERA 1996
- Rule 69
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.