Case 2401210/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Wrigley v Ian Daniel Stafford — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401210/2020
- Decision date
- 24 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Wrigley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal at this stage. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service before bringing an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant had not given an acceptable reason why that complaint should not be struck out.
The tribunal said that even if it were satisfied that the claimant was employed by the respondent rather than self-employed, the employment would still have been for less than two years. That remained the position even if the period from April 2018 to 13 February 2020, together with four weeks' notice, was counted in the claimant's favour. The tribunal therefore found that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint and struck it out.
The judgment also recorded that the claimant's other complaints relating to holiday pay and other payments said to be due from the respondent were not affected by this decision and would be discussed at the preliminary hearing on 3 June 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant did not have the qualifying two years' service required by section 108 ERA 1996. | 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.