Case 2400982/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Porter v Concentrix Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2400982/2020
- Decision date
- 6 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Porter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss E Porter brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Concentrix. The tribunal said that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so she was not entitled to pursue the claim.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The decision was issued by Employment Judge Howard and sent to the parties on 6 March 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claimant had less than two years' service and 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- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.