Case 2408591/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Beat v The Blackpool North Shore Golf Club Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408591/2022
- Decision date
- 9 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCarthy Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Beat
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the unfair dismissal complaint in this judgment. It recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim, and found that Ms K Beat had been employed by The Blackpool North Shore Golf Club Ltd for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to bring a complaint of unfair dismissal. It also found 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 result was that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaint was not affected by this decision and would proceed to a hearing, but it does not determine that other complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.