Case 2402454/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Francis v Fraser Capital Management Limited Trading as Club 3000 Bingo — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402454/2024
- Decision date
- 8 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Francis
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Francis brought a claim against Fraser Capital Management Limited trading as Club 3000 Bingo for unfair dismissal. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint, and that the claimant accepted she had worked for the respondent for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal held that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal proceedings.
The claimant was warned on 3 July 2024 that Employment Judge Holmes was considering striking out the ordinary unfair dismissal claim. In response, she suggested for the first time that she may have an automatically unfair dismissal complaint and said that, in seeking to complain about the person who dismissed her for gross misconduct, she may be a whistleblower. The tribunal found that the claim form did not disclose a whistleblowing complaint and that the box was not ticked.
The tribunal treated the claimant's response as, at most, an application to amend. It rejected that application as deficient because it did not set out enough detail of the alleged disclosure and detriment to enable the respondent to understand the case it had to meet. The tribunal also accepted the respondent's submission that there was no reasonable prospect of showing qualifying protected disclosures, including because the alleged complaint appeared to concern the store manager's handling of a conduct hearing and because the matter was not put as being in the public interest.
The tribunal further noted that the alleged disclosure came after the alleged detriment, and it held that the claimant's attempt to introduce whistleblowing was a clear attempt to recast her complaints into a jurisdiction that would allow her to proceed without two years' service. The claim in its entirety was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant accepted she had been employed for less than two years, so the tribunal held she was not entitled to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 ERA 1996. The claim was struck out after she failed to give an acceptable reason why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claimant raised whistleblowing only in response to the strike-out warning. The tribunal found the claim form did not disclose a whistleblowing complaint, the box was not ticked, and there was no language in the form to support it; any amendment application was rejected as deficient and, in any event, had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonable prospect of success
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.