Case 2402658/2024 · Employment Tribunal
C A Walmsley v The Inn at Grasmere Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402658/2024
- Decision date
- 10 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C A Walmsley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningC A Walmsley brought complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to provide written reasons for dismissal against The Inn at Grasmere Limited. Employment Judge Batten struck out both complaints. The judgment states that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and that section 92(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service for a complaint about written reasons for dismissal.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years and was therefore not entitled to bring either complaint. It also recorded that the claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out. The judgment says the claimant's separate breach of contract complaint was not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Complaint about failure to provide written reasons for dismissal was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service for the purposes of s.92(3) ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.92(3) 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.