Case 2415478/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs T Davis v Romac Logistics Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2415478/2020
- Decision date
- 22 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs T Davis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Romac Logistics Ltd. Employment Judge Phil Allen held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required at least two years' service to bring such a complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
Because the statutory qualifying period was not met, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal also recorded that, despite being given the opportunity to do so, the claimant did not provide an acceptable reason why the complaint should not be struck out, and nothing in her correspondence showed either that she had two years' service or that she was relying on a claim type that did not require it. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the complaint because the claimant had less than two years' service and 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.