Case 2400504/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Cullen v ODL Europe Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400504/2022
- Decision date
- 6 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Cullen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R Cullen brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against ODL Europe. The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service before an unfair dismissal claim could be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the service requirement was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that the claimant had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.
The result was that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision, but it does not identify those complaints or determine them.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so section 108 ERA 1996 prevented the unfair dismissal complaint from proceeding. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. The judgment says the claimant's other complaints were not affected, but it does not identify or determine them. | 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.