Case 2308379/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Singh v Gurkha Cleaning and Laundry Service Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2308379/2020
- Decision date
- 20 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs L Singh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Gurkha Cleaning and Laundry Service Limited and Glow Events Ltd. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service to present an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed by the first respondent for less than two years. It also recorded that the claimant did not contend that she had been employed by the second respondent.
Because the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal found that she had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
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 section 108 ERA 1996 requires two years' service. It found the claimant had been employed by the first respondent for less than two years and did not contend that she was employed by the second respondent. | 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.