Case 2411593/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Dunnill v Routes Healthcare — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411593/2023
- Decision date
- 26 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Dunnill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. It recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity, by letter dated 1 February 2024, to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant had not actively pursued the unfair dismissal complaint and had not provided information showing why the Tribunal had jurisdiction. The Tribunal referred to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and recorded that the claimant had less than two years' employment and that the claim was not an automatic unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment did not decide the remaining unpaid accrued holiday claim. It stated that the holiday pay claim remained listed for hearing on 7 June 2024 and made case management orders for that hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because it had not been actively pursued and the Tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' service or an apparent automatic unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The unpaid accrued holiday claim under the Working Time Regulations was not decided in this judgment and remained listed for hearing on 7 June 2024. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the 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.