Case 2502492/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Gaskin v Solarglide Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2502492/2019
- Decision date
- 9 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Gaskin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs S Gaskin complained of unfair dismissal against Solarglide Limited. Employment Judge Cox held that the claim could not proceed because section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires two years' service before an unfair dismissal complaint can be brought, and the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
The judgment records that the claimant responded to a strike out warning by email dated 26 November 2019, accepting that she was unable to bring an unfair dismissal claim because she had less than two years' service. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint.
The judgment states that the claimant's other complaints were not affected by this decision. No remedy was awarded in respect of the struck-out unfair dismissal complaint.
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 at least two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint. It found the claimant had less than two years' service and noted that, in an email dated 26 November 2019, she accepted she could not bring the claim on that basis. | 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.