Case 2401213/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Brown v Carrs Billington Agriculture (Sales) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401213/2020
- Decision date
- 8 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Brown
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing heard in private by telephone before Employment Judge Shotter sitting alone on 22 May 2020. The tribunal recorded that the claimant was Ms M Brown and that the correct respondent employer was Carrs Billington Agriculture (Sales) Ltd. It also dismissed all claims against Carrs Group PLC, stating that it no longer had any interest in the proceedings.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It noted that a strike out warning had been sent on 21 February 2020. The tribunal then held that, under section 108 of the ERA, the claimant was not entitled to bring a claim of unfair dismissal and that none of the statutory exceptions applied.
The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed. The judgment records no compensation or other monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal held that the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of employment to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 94 ERA 1996. It said section 108 ERA 1996 meant she was not entitled to bring the claim and that none of the exceptions applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- 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.