Case 2401930/2024 · Employment Tribunal
A McAlpine v Marika Slominska - Empire Freehold Investments Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401930/2024
- Decision date
- 11 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A McAlpine
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal and about redundancy pay. The tribunal stated that sections 108 and 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 require not less than two years' service for those complaints.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. It also recorded that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why these complaints should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal and redundancy pay complaints were struck out, while the claimant's other complaints were not affected and were to proceed to hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The complaint about redundancy pay was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not give an acceptable reason why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 155 of the 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.