Case 2414498/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Innes v Manchester Metropolitan University — 2020
- Case reference
- 2414498/2019
- Decision date
- 20 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Innes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered only the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service before such a complaint could be brought, and found that Miss L Innes had been employed by Manchester Metropolitan University for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to present an unfair dismissal complaint. It also recorded that she had been given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but had not given an acceptable reason.
The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. It stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment, and no remedy was awarded in the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason, despite being given an opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.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.