Case 2313872/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Boulkrinat v Pret A Manger (Europe) Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2313872/2024
- Decision date
- 17 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Boulkrinat
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed Miss S Boulkrinat’s complaints of unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions from wages for lack of jurisdiction. They had not been presented within the applicable primary time limits under the Employment Rights Act 1996, and the Tribunal found that it had been reasonably practicable to present them in time.
The Tribunal also dismissed the complaints of harassment related to age, direct age discrimination, and discrimination arising from disability for lack of jurisdiction. Those complaints had not been presented within the applicable primary time limits under the Equality Act 2010, and the Tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
In any event, the Tribunal found that Miss Boulkrinat did not have the right to bring an unfair dismissal complaint because, at the effective date of termination, she did not have the two years’ continuous service required by section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and no relevant exception applied. All complaints having been dismissed, the hearing listed for 19–22 January 2027 was cancelled. No monetary remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not presented within the applicable primary time limit and the Tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. The Tribunal also found that the claimant lacked the two years’ continuous service required by section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that no relevant exception applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not presented within the applicable primary time limit and the Tribunal found it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to age was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not presented within the applicable primary time limit and the Tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | The complaint of direct age discrimination was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not presented within the applicable primary time limit and the Tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not presented within the applicable primary time limit and the Tribunal found that it was not just and equitable to extend time. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable to present the complaints in time
- just and equitable extension of time
- section 108(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 two-year continuous service requirement
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.