Case 2415144/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Jackson v JT Care Homes Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415144/2021
- Decision date
- 4 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Jackson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss T Jackson brought a claim of unfair dismissal against JT Care Homes Limited. The tribunal found that she had been employed for less than two years, and therefore did not meet the qualifying service requirement for an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but the tribunal found that she did not provide an acceptable reason. The judgment records that the tribunal also asked whether the claim included sex discrimination, and the claimant confirmed that she was not claiming sex discrimination per se. No other claims were identified in the claim form.
Accordingly, the tribunal struck out the claim. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant complained of unfair dismissal. The tribunal recorded that she had been employed for less than two years, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under s.108 ERA 1996. She was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but did not give an acceptable reason. The tribunal also asked whether the claim included sex discrimination; the claimant said she was not claiming sex discrimination per se, and no other claims were identified. | 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.