Case 2408589/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Gibbs v I Care GB Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408589/2020
- Decision date
- 14 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Whittaker
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Gibbs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs C Gibbs brought a claim against I Care GB Limited described in the judgment as ordinary constructive unfair dismissal under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordinary constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Act. The hearing was before Employment Judge Whittaker sitting alone on 20 January 2022 in Manchester by CVP.
The tribunal dismissed the claim. Its reason was that, at the effective date of termination, the claimant did not have the necessary two years' qualifying period of service to bring a claim for ordinary constructive unfair dismissal. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a claim of ordinary constructive unfair dismissal under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and ordinary constructive dismissal under section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It was dismissed because the claimant did not have the necessary two years' qualifying service at the effective date of termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 95(1)(c) 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.