Case 2412114/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Holland v AAO UK Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2412114/2023
- Decision date
- 6 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Holland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Holland brought complaints of unfair dismissal and a claim for a redundancy payment against AAO UK Services Limited. The tribunal recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and that section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring a redundancy payment claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years. It therefore held that she was not entitled to bring either of those claims. The tribunal also noted that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why the complaints should not be struck out. Accordingly, both claims were struck out. The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not provide an acceptable reason why the claim should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996 two-year service requirement
- s.155 Employment Rights Act 1996 two-year service requirement
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.