Case 2408715/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Evans v Gillian Charnock — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408715/2022
- Decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss R Evans brought a single unfair dismissal claim against Gillian Charnock. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint.
On the information provided by the respondent, the claimant had been employed for less than two years, and she did not provide a start date for her employment. The tribunal therefore found that she was not entitled to bring the proceedings.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. The judgment therefore states that the only claim made was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the only claim after finding that section 108 ERA 1996 required two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, that the claimant appeared to have been employed for less than two years on the information provided by the respondent, and that the claimant had not provided a start date. The claimant also failed to give an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 ERA 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.