Case 2408445/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Thompson Miss M Thomas v SWiM Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408445/2021
- Decision date
- 9 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Thompson Miss M Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimants' unfair dismissal complaints in case numbers 2408445/2021, 2408446/2021, 2408450/2021 and 2408451/2021 against SWiM Ltd. It found that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that both claimants had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimants were not entitled to bring unfair dismissal complaints. It also found that they had not given an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaints should not be struck out. The unfair dismissal complaints were therefore struck out.
The judgment stated that the claimants' other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaints because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service and the claimants had been employed for less than two years. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.