Case 2411821/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Ms C Hannell v Lima Networks Ltd — 2019

Case reference: 2411821/2018
Decision date: 14 January 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Parkin Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms C Hannell

Respondent

Lima Networks Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Ms C Hannell brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Lima Networks Ltd. Regional Employment Judge Parkin held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.

On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out but did not give an acceptable reason. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.

The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision and would proceed to the next hearing on 4 April 2019. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires at least two years' service and the claimant had less than two years' service. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.