Case 2413741/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Badea v The Queen Cester OPCO Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2413741/2019
- Decision date
- 19 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Badea
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mrs A Badea, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against The Queen Cester OPCO Limited. Employment Judge Franey held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required the claimant to have at least two years' continuous service to pursue an unfair dismissal complaint.
Applying that requirement to the facts set out in the claimant's email of 4 November 2019, the tribunal found that she did not have two years of continuous employment. It therefore concluded that she was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal proceedings and struck out that complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 ERA 1996 required at least two years' continuous service for an unfair dismissal complaint. On the facts set out in the claimant's email of 4 November 2019, she did not have two years' continuous employment, so she was not entitled to bring the claim. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.