Case 2420044/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Holland v Cherish UK Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2420044/2020
- Decision date
- 20 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Holland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's unfair dismissal complaint. It held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint could be brought, and found that Miss Holland had been employed by Cherish UK for less than two years.
The judgment records that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the complaint should not be struck out, but she did not provide an acceptable reason. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The tribunal stated that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this judgment, so only the unfair dismissal claim was disposed of in this decision.
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, so she was not entitled to bring an unfair dismissal complaint under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. She did not give 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.