Case 2415361/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Beale v Euro Garages Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415361/2021
- Decision date
- 18 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Beale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal only. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that Miss Beale had been employed by Euro Garages Ltd for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal found that she was not entitled to bring the complaint. It also recorded that she had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite having been given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service, that the claimant had less than two years' service, and that she had not given an acceptable reason 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.