Case 2408559/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Frederisken v Mercure Bolton Georgian House Hotel — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408559/2022
- Decision date
- 5 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Frederisken
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Frederisken brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal against Mercure Bolton Georgian House Hotel. The tribunal recorded that she had not been continuously employed for two years ending with the effective date of termination, so the ordinary right to present an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not available.
The tribunal noted that the exceptions in section 108 did not appear to apply. It also recorded that, by letter dated 3 November 2022, the claimant was given until 10 November 2022 to show cause why the complaint should not be struck out, but no reply was received.
On that basis, and applying rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal struck out the claim. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Single complaint of unfair dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant had not been continuously employed for two years ending with the effective date of termination, no section 108 ERA 1996 exception appeared to apply, and the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's 3 November 2022 show-cause letter. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.