Case 2307076/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Canas v Social Pantry — 2024
- Case reference
- 2307076/2023
- Decision date
- 9 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Aspinall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Canas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out. It recorded that, by letter dated 19 March 2024, the claimant had been invited to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaint should not be struck out because she did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and there were no exceptional circumstances exempting her from that requirement.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claim stayed listed for hearing on 15 May 2024. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
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 because the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, and did not make written representations or request a hearing in response to the tribunal's letter of 19 March 2024. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.