Case 2413469/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms W Bertram v Chaseley Care Home CCH Blackpool Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413469/2020
- Decision date
- 4 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms W Bertram
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded complaints of unfair dismissal and failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal. It found that the claimant had been employed by the respondent for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal held that she was not entitled to bring either complaint, referring to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for unfair dismissal and section 92 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for the written reasons complaint.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaints should not be struck out, but she did not give an acceptable reason. It therefore struck out both complaints. The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
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, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | This was the complaint of failure to provide a written statement of reasons for dismissal. It was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and therefore was not entitled to bring the complaint under section 92 ERA 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.108 ERA 1996
- s.92 ERA 1996
- strike out
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.