Case 2406430/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Maunder v Voyage Care — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406430/2022
- Decision date
- 15 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes. Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Maunder
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with a complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Miss M Maunder against Voyage Care Limited. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to pursue the unfair dismissal proceedings. It also recorded that she had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore struck out.
The tribunal added that the claimant appeared to make no other claims. If she was making any other claims, she was required to notify the tribunal within 14 days of the sending of the judgment and identify them.
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 under section 108 ERA 1996 because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the claim. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity, why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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.