Case 2415251/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Kidd v Tramp Hair Boutique — 2020
- Case reference
- 2415251/2019
- Decision date
- 25 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Kidd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss E Kidd, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Tramp Hair Boutique. Employment Judge Howard Date held that the complaint could not proceed because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, and the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant was given the opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not give an acceptable reason. The judgment therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal noted that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment.
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 and therefore could not bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. She was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but did not provide an acceptable reason. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.108 Employment Rights Act 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.