Case 2400242/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Ahmed v Calico Barley View Care Home — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400242/2020
- Decision date
- 28 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Ahmed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It held that the claimant had less than two years’ service with the respondent, Calico Barley View Care Home, and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, for why the complaint should not be struck out.
Accordingly, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment states that the claimant’s other complaint was not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.