Case 2416077/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Gumaru v Derma Ska Ltd t/a Rem Laser Clinic — 2021
- Case reference
- 2416077/2020
- Decision date
- 12 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Gumaru
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, so section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 prevented her from bringing an ordinary unfair dismissal claim unless it fell within a statutory exception.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but the tribunal found that she did not give an acceptable reason. The claim form and her letter of 27 November 2020 did not identify the complaint as one of the special categories of unfair dismissal to which the two-year service requirement does not apply, and the tribunal said it had no discretion to let the claim proceed on that basis. The unfair dismissal complaint was therefore struck out. The judgment also records that the claimant's other complaints were not affected and would proceed to a hearing as notified.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was struck out because the claimant had less than two years' service and did not identify the claim as falling within any special category of unfair dismissal exempt from the two-year requirement. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.