Case 2402235/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Francis v Stripestar Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402235/2021
- Decision date
- 3 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Francis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss N Francis worked for Stripestar Limited from 3 March 2019 until her employment ended no later than 28 September 2020. She presented an ACAS notification and Tribunal claim on 4 March 2021. Her claim form complained of unfair dismissal, breach of contract and unpaid annual leave. She did not attend the final hearing and did not provide a witness statement. The tribunal proceeded in her absence under Rule 47 after being satisfied that she had notice of the hearing and was unlikely to attend.
On the jurisdiction issue, Employment Judge Johnson accepted the respondent's case that the effective date of termination was no later than 28 September 2020. On that basis, the claims should have been presented, or at least notified to ACAS, by 27 December 2020. Because both ACAS notification and presentation of the claim took place on 4 March 2021, the tribunal held that the claims were out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to consider them. The judgment therefore dismissed the claims.
The judge also noted that the unfair dismissal complaint appeared likely to fail in any event because the claimant had not worked continuously for two years before the effective date of termination, referring to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. That point was not decided because the lack of jurisdiction was sufficient to dispose of the case. The judgment also records a case management correction of the respondent's name to Stripestar Limited and notes that the respondent might apply for costs, including counsel's fee of £1,250 plus VAT, but no costs order was made in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the tribunal held the claim was out of time and had no jurisdiction to consider it; the judge also noted the claim appeared likely to fail under section 108 ERA 1996 because the claimant had not worked continuously for two years before dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and therefore outside jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment described this as a complaint of unpaid annual leave; it was dismissed because the tribunal held the claim was presented out of time and therefore outside jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 47
- Rule 2
- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 76
- Rule 77
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.