Case 2308166/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2308166/2020
- Decision date
- 14 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard from the claimant, Miss Annette Efejuku, and from counsel for King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust at a full merits hearing on 14 November 2022. It found that the claimant's fixed-term contract had been terminated on 21 June 2020, and that she did not have sufficient continuous service to bring a claim for unfair dismissal under s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal also found that she did not have sufficient continuous service to bring a claim for a statutory redundancy payment under s.115 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, it held that all claims were dismissed because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider them.
The respondent's application for a costs order in respect of an earlier open preliminary hearing was refused. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had insufficient continuous service under the fixed-term contract terminated on 21 June 2020, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction under s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant had insufficient continuous service under the fixed-term contract terminated on 21 June 2020, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction under s.115 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.115 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.