Case 2417886/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Coop v TJ Morris Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2417886/2020
- Decision date
- 10 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Coop
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss G Coop brought a single claim of unfair dismissal against TJ Morris Ltd. The tribunal held that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The reason given was that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' continuous employment before an employee acquires statutory protection against unfair dismissal, and the claimant did not suggest that any exception to that rule applied. The tribunal also recorded that, by notice dated 19 November 2021, the claimant was invited to make representations or request a hearing about strike-out, but she did not do so. The judgment was issued without a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rule 37 because it considered the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. It noted that, under section 108 ERA 1996, the claimant needed two years' continuous employment for statutory unfair dismissal protection, and the claimant did not suggest that any exception applied. The judgment records that the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing and did not do so. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.