Case 2406704/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Evans v Committee of Timperley Conservative & Social Club — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406704/2023
- Decision date
- 17 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Evans
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Liverpool (CVP) on 9 October 2023, Employment Judge Horne struck out Mrs A Evans's unfair dismissal complaint. The respondent was Committee of Timperley Conservative & Social Club. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with no written reasons unless requested.
The tribunal held that the unfair dismissal complaint had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant did not have the qualifying period of continuous employment required by section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, the complaint was struck out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
No monetary award was made. The judgment does not record any separate remedy calculation, and it does not determine any discrimination, wages, or contract claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out at a preliminary hearing under rule 37 because the claimant did not have the qualifying period of continuous employment required by section 108(1) ERA 1996, so the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 108(1) of the 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.