Case 2412153/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms W M D Law v Liam Walsh — 2024
- Case reference
- 2412153/2023
- Decision date
- 6 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms W M D Law
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal. In a letter dated 27 January 2024, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out, because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 generally prevents an unfair dismissal complaint unless the claimant has two years' service or falls within a specific exception. The tribunal said those exceptions did not seem to apply on the material before it.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The judgment recorded that the claimant's remaining claim or claims stayed listed for hearing on 18 April 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the tribunal warned by letter dated 27 January 2024 that, under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the claimant did not appear entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint because she had not shown two years' employment or any applicable exception; the claimant made no sufficient written representations and did not request a hearing. | 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.