Case 2310197/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Anderson v Sullivan Bus and Coach Company Limited (In Voluntary Creditors’ Liquidation) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2310197/2024
- Decision date
- 26 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss C Anderson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal only. It recorded that, by letter dated 26 November 2024, the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out because she had been employed by the first respondent for less than two years and section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service with the first respondent, so section 108 ERA 1996 was not satisfied. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.