Case 2410807/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Boyle Prescott v Cumberland Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2410807/2023
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Boyle Prescott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms J Boyle Prescott, brought an unfair dismissal complaint against Cumberland Council. The Tribunal identified in correspondence dated 25 October 2023 and 6 February 2024 that the claim appeared liable to strike out because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, and the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The judgment records that she failed to give an acceptable reason, despite that opportunity, for the complaint to continue.
On that basis, the Tribunal ordered that the claim be struck out. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal struck out the claim because section 108 ERA 1996 requires two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, the claimant had less than two years' service, and she did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.