Case 2403583/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Allchurch v Ackroyd Legal (London) LLP — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403583/2022
- Decision date
- 25 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mark Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Allchurch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs E Allchurch presented complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment against Ackroyd Legal (London) LLP. The tribunal identified the statutory qualifying period for a redundancy payment under s.155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and for an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It held that the claimant was not entitled to bring either complaint because she did not have the required two years' service.
The tribunal had written to the claimant on 15 June 2022 and gave her an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaints should not be struck out. It found that she failed to make written representations, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The complaints of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment were therefore struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were 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 tribunal found the claimant did not have the two years' service required by s.108 ERA 1996 and did not make sufficient representations after being given an opportunity to do so. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the tribunal found the claimant did not have the two years' continuous service required by s.155 ERA 1996 and did not make sufficient representations after being given an opportunity to do so. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.155 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.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.