Case 2403502/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Pochlaniak v Morecambe Bay Wines Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403502/2022
- Decision date
- 15 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Pochlaniak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Mrs Pochlaniak had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that she had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason.
The resulting order was that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment expressly states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but no acceptable reason was provided. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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.